[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTS: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND
ASSESSING FUTURE NEEDS
=======================================================================
(116-26)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-659 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida, BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
Vice Chair DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
JARED HUFFMAN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa DOUG LaMALFA, California
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
HARLEY ROUDA, California Puerto Rico
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ viii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 117
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Hon. R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):
Oral statement............................................... 8
Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for
Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Oral statement............................................... 10
Prepared joint statement of Hon. James and Major General
Spellmon................................................... 12
Panel 2
Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows Point, Maryland,
Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways Council, Inc.:
Oral statement............................................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Chad Berginnis, C.F.M., Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers, Inc.:
Oral statement............................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association:
Oral statement............................................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water Conservation,
National Audubon Society:
Oral statement............................................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Derek Brockbank, Executive Director, American Shore and Beach
Preservation Association:
Oral statement............................................... 91
Prepared statement........................................... 93
F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D., Director, Center for Western Weather and
Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University
of California San Diego:
Oral statement............................................... 97
Prepared statement........................................... 99
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of July 9, 2019, from Doug Wheeler, President & CEO,
Florida Ports Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace
F. Napolitano.................................................. 117
Letter of July 10, 2019, from Nicole Vasilaros, Senior Vice
President of Government Relations and Legal Affairs, National
Marine Manufacturers Association, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano....................................... 119
Article, ``Breached Levee Sucks in Barges in Alexander County,
Highlighting Need for Repairs, Officials Say,'' by Gabriel
Neeley-Streit, The Southern, July 3, 2019, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Mike Bost....................................... 120
Letter of February 14, 2019, from David P. Ross, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection
Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast......... 122
Press Release of May 22, 2019, Issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J.
Mast........................................................... 124
Letter of May 1, 2019, from Robert Redfield, M.D., Director,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Administrator,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast............................... 124
Letter of April 16, 2019, from David D. Whiting, Deputy Director,
Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast................................... 126
Letter of November 9, 2018, from David D. Whiting, Deputy
Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast............................... 127
Validation Study--Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, June 2019,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer.................. 128
Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report--Carolina Beach, North
Carolina, June 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David
Rouzer......................................................... 129
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Hon. R.D. James,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).................. 131
Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................ 131
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................ 133
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................ 134
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers....................... 134
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers....................... 135
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Major General Scott
A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers....................... 137
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers....................... 137
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers....................... 138
Questions from Hon. Thomas Massie to Rob Innis, Plant Manager,
Sparrows Point, Maryland, Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways
Council, Inc................................................... 140
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Derek Brockbank, Executive
Director, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association.... 141
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to F. Martin Ralph,
Ph.D., Director, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
San Diego...................................................... 143
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
San Diego...................................................... 145
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 1, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Water Resources
Development Acts: Status of Implementation and Assessing Future
Needs''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will
meet on Wednesday, July 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2167,
Rayburn House Office Building, to receive testimony related to
the development and implementation of water resources
development acts (WRDA)--which are principal legislative
vehicles to authorize studies, projects, and policies carried
out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Civil Works (Corps).
The purpose of this hearing is to provide Members with an
opportunity to review the Corps' implementation of the most
recent congressionally-authorized WRDAs, enacted in 2014, 2016,
and 2018. This hearing will also begin to identify future needs
to inform the development of WRDA 2020, which the Committee
expects to develop and approve next year.
BACKGROUND
The Corps is the federal government's largest water
resources development and management agency and is comprised of
38 district offices within eight divisions. The Corps operates
more than 700 dams; has constructed 14,500 miles of levees; and
maintains more than 1,000 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland
harbors, as well as 12,000 miles of inland waterways.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45185#fn1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation was the earliest Civil Works mission, when
Congress authorized the Corps to improve safety on the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers in 1824. Since then, the Corps' primary
missions have evolved and expanded to include flood damage
reduction along rivers, lakes, and the coastlines, and projects
to restore and protect the environment. Along with these
missions, the Corps is the largest generator of hydropower in
the nation, provides water storage opportunities to cities and
industry, regulates development in navigable waters, assists in
national emergencies, and manages a recreation program. To
date, the Corps manages nearly 1,500 water resources projects.
The standard authorization process for a Corps project
requires two separate congressional authorizations--one for
studying feasibility and a subsequent one for construction.
Congress traditionally considers Corps projects and policy
authorizations biennially through the enactment of a WRDA bill.
Congress has enacted three consecutive WRDA bills since 2014.
STATUS OF WRDA IMPLEMENATION
The Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA 2018) was
signed into law as Title I of the America's Water
Infrastructure Act (P.L. 115-270) by President Trump on October
23, 2018. WRDA 2018 authorized 14 Chief's Reports, authorized
four new Post Authorization Change Reports, 10 new feasibility
studies, and requested that the Corps expedite completion of 32
existing feasibility studies. As part of implementing WRDA
2018, the Corps must also consider whether or not to issue new
guidance for specific programs to aid in the execution of the
provision. The Corps held a 60-day public comment period for
the development of guidance, which closed on February 12, 2019.
Since enactment of WRDA 2018, the Corps has issued 36
implementation guidance documents \2\. Similarly, there are two
provisions of the WRDA 2014 (sections 1001--vertical
integration and acceleration of studies and 1043b--pilot
project for non-federal implementation of projects) and three
provisions (sections 1139--dam safety, 1162--fish and wildlife
mitigation, 1163--wetlands mitigation) of the WRDA 2016 where
the Corps issued revised guidance this year as a result of
additional guidance in WRDA 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-
Planning/Legislative-Links/wrda_2018/wrda2018_impguide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINING FUTURE NEEDS AND SECTION 7001 ANNUAL REPORT
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121) established a mechanism for Corps
projects and studies to be communicated to Congress for
potential authorization. Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 requires
the Secretary of the Army to annually publish a notice in the
Federal Register requesting proposals from non-federal
interests for new project authorizations, new feasibility
studies, and modifications to existing Corps projects. Further,
it requires the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress and
make publicly available a ``Report to Congress on Future Water
Resources Development'' (Annual Report) of those activities
that are related to the missions of the Corps and require
specific authorization by law.
Additionally, Section 7001 contains a provision that
requires the Corps to submit to Congress an appendix containing
descriptions of those projects requested by non-federal
interests that were not included in the Annual Report.
Submission of the Annual Report (and the appendix) allows
Congress to review all requests submitted by non-federal
interests to the Corps.
Since WRRDA 2014, the Annual Report has been used as a
guide from which Congress considers which studies, projects,
and modifications will receive authorization in future WRDA
legislation. This process was required in part, because of a
Congressional ban on earmarks in 2011. In June 2019, the Corps
submitted their Annual Report \3\ for Congressional
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/
p16021coll5/id/35439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps is currently soliciting proposals \4\ for
inclusion in the 2020 Report to Congress. The deadline for
proposals is August 27, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/29/2019-
08583/proposals-by-non-federal-interests-for-feasibility-studies-and-
for-modifications-to-an-authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
As the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure moves
forward in developing the next WRDA legislation, this hearing
is intended to provide Members with an opportunity to review
implementation of past WRDAs and begin consideration of
potential projects and policy initiatives that benefit the
Nation.
WITNESSES
PANEL 1
The Honorable Rickey Dale ``R.D.'' James,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army-Civil Works
Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy
Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, United
States Army Corps of Engineers
PANEL 2
Mr. Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows Point,
LafargeHolcim, on behalf of the of Waterways Council Inc.
Mr. Chad Berginnis, Executive Director,
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Mr. Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and
Drainage District Association
Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water
Conservation, The National Audubon Society
Mr. Derek Brockbank, Executive Director, American
Shore and Beach Preservation Association
Mr. F. Martin ``Marty'' Ralph, Ph.D., Director,
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTS: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND
ASSESSING FUTURE NEEDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Grace F.
Napolitano (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano, DeFazio, Mucarsel-
Powell, Johnson of Texas, Garamendi, Lowenthal, Carbajal,
Espaillat, Finkenauer, Delgado, Pappas, Craig, Rouda,
Malinowski; Westerman, Graves of Missouri, Webster, Massie,
Woodall, Babin, Graves of Louisiana, Rouzer, Bost, Weber, Mast,
Palmer.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order, and today's hearing is an opportunity to review the
Corps implementation of the most recently passed
congressionally authorized WRDA. Enacted 2014, in 2016, and
2018. This hearing will also begin to identify future needs to
inform the development for a new WRDA 2020.
Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that committee
members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the
subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Army Corps of Engineers is, simply put, the Nation's
premier water resources expert for our Nation. Congress has
vested significant responsibility in the Corps to carry out
vital navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration
projects for the benefit of our communities, and for our
Nation. Each of these projects has been thoroughly studied by
the Corps and authorized by Congress through biennial Water
Resources Development Acts.
This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has traditionally
worked to move a Water Resources Development Act every 2 years,
and has successfully enacted three consecutive Water Resources
Development Acts since 2014. Through these WRDAs, this
committee seeks to address local, regional, and national needs
through authorization of new Corps projects, studies, and
policies that benefit every corner of our Nation.
The Corps implementation of Water Resources Development
Acts, particularly WRDA 2018, is very important for us to
understand. We want to know that the Corps implements the law
as Congress intended and ensure that the Corps continues to
remain responsive to national, regional, and local priorities,
and to a changing climate, and has the funding to do so.
I am specifically interested in WRDA provisions that
involve the National Dam Safety Program, nature-based
infrastructure initiatives, using data to enhance operations at
our reservoirs, and the Corps assessment of their authorized
project backlog. For my district in California, I am very
keenly interested in ensuring that this vital dam safety work
at Whittier Narrows is completed expeditiously.
After more than 12, 14 years, something like that, as well
as ensuring the Corps has the tools and funding it needs to
ensure a reliable source of water for the drought-prone areas
in the West. Staying on the 2-year schedule for enacting the
next new WRDA is critical to water infrastructure to the
Nation, and today's hearing starts the process for the
development of a 2020 WRDA, but Congress is only half the
equation. We must have a partner in the Corps and this
administration in requesting funding for the congressionally
authorized projects and studies. When the administration
includes the words, ``No New Start'' in a budget request, that
means, ``No new infrastructure.''
Secretary James, General Spellmon, thank you for being here
today. I would like to thank very much all of the South Pacific
region. I thank you and very much for their work and
partnership through the years, and I would like to welcome our
stakeholder panel for their participation in today's hearing.
I look forward to working with all of you in the
development of the next WRDA 2020 and your testimony.
[Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
The Army Corps of Engineers is--simply put--the nation's premier
water resources expert for our Nation.
Congress has vested significant responsibility in the Corps to
carry out vital navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration
projects for the benefit of our communities and our nation. Each of
these projects has been thoroughly studied by the Corps and authorized
by Congress through biennial water resources development acts.
This Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has traditionally worked to
move a water resources development act every two years, and has
successfully enacted three consecutive Water Resources Development Acts
since 2014. Through these WRDAs, this Committee seeks to address local,
regional, and national needs through authorization of new Corps
projects, studies, and policies that benefit every corner of the
nation.
The Corps implementation of the Water Resources Development Acts,
particularly WRDA 2018, is important for us to understand. We want to
know that the Corps implements the law as Congress intended, and ensure
that the Corps remains responsive to national, regional, and local
priorities and to a changing climate.
I am specifically interested in WRDA provisions that involve the
National Dam Safety Program, nature-based infrastructure initiatives,
using data to enhance operations at our reservoirs, and the Corps'
assessment of their authorized project backlog.
For my district, I am very interested in ensuring that vital dam
safety work at Whittier Narrows Dam is completed expeditiously, as well
as ensuring the Corps' has the tools and funding it needs to ensure a
reliable source of water for the drought prone areas in the west.
Staying on a two-year schedule for enacting a new WRDA is critical
to water infrastructure to the nation, and today's hearing starts the
process for the development of a 2020 WRDA.
But Congress is only half of the equation. We must have a partner
in the Corps and this administration in requesting funding for
Congressionally-authorized projects and studies. When the
administration includes the words ``NO NEW START'' in a budget request,
what that means is a NO to infrastructure.
Secretary James and General Spellmon, thank you for being here
today. I would also like to thank the South Pacific Region and the L.A.
District of the Corps for their work and partnership throughout the
years. I would also like to welcome our stakeholder panel for their
participation in today's hearing.
I look forward to working with you all in the development of a 2020
WRDA, and in your testimony today.
Mrs. Napolitano. At this time, I am pleased to yield to my
colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Westerman, for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, and in a
bipartisan manner, I would associate myself with your comments.
Very, very good remarks there. Thank you for holding this
important hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today to discuss the important work that the Corps of Engineers
does.
I am proud to be able to work on this committee that has
been able to pass three major transformational WRDA laws in the
last three Congresses that are there to improve our Nation's
water resources infrastructure. With this tremendous
accomplishment, I want to urge the Corps to expeditiously
implement some of the great reforms from these three laws.
As we look forward to future water resources legislation,
one issue that cannot be overlooked is the flooding that has
occurred across the Nation. Out of all, the Arkansas River back
in my home State in my district was swollen to historic levels,
flooding homes, breaching levees, and devastating farmland.
Arkansas is by no means alone in these experiences. Our
neighbors in Oklahoma, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana,
Kansas, Iowa, and beyond have all been affected by heavy rains
this year.
Unprecedented floodings such as this should serve as a
catalyst for us to reexamine infrastructure to ensure it is
updated and capable of protecting life and property. These
disasters beg an important question: What can Congress do to
prevent future flooding, or more importantly, how can we
improve infrastructure within our States to reduce the risk of
dam and levee breaches?
In Arkansas alone, we have seen an estimated $23 million
per day in economic loss along the Arkansas River as barges and
boats can no longer navigate our inland waterways. Much of this
waterborne commerce is dependent on infrastructure that was
initially constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and is quickly
approaching the end of its shelf life.
So, as the flooded waters recede across the Nation, it is
important for this committee to continue its bipartisan
commitment to work and pass critical water resources
legislation. We can't afford another year of flooded homes and
washed out farmlands. This is a sight that none of us want to
see and the American people deserve better than this.
I look forward to hearing about the Corps implementation of
the recent WRDAs and hearing constructive ideas from our
witnesses across both panels and addressing our future water
resources infrastructure needs.
[Mr. Westerman's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment
Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano for holding this important hearing,
and thank you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
important work of the Army Corps of Engineers.
I'm proud to be able to work on this Committee that has been able
to pass three major, transformational WRDA laws in the last three
Congresses to improve our Nation's water resources infrastructure. With
this tremendous accomplishment, I want to urge the Corps to
expeditiously implement some of the great reforms from these three
laws.
As we look forward to future water resources legislation, one issue
that cannot be overlooked is the flooding that has occurred across the
Nation.
While the Arkansas River was swollen to historic levels, flooding
homes, breaching levees, and devastating farmland, Arkansas is by no
means alone in these experiences. Our neighbors in Oklahoma,
Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and beyond have all been affected
by heavy rains this year. Unprecedented flooding such as this should
serve as a catalyst for us to re-examine infrastructure, to ensure it
is updated and capable of protecting life and property.
These disasters beg an important question: what can Congress do to
prevent future flooding? Or more importantly, how can we improve
infrastructure within our states to reduce the risk of dam and levee
breaches?
In Arkansas alone, we've seen an estimated $23 million in daily
economic loss along the Arkansas River as barges and boats can no
longer navigate our inland waterways. Much of this waterborne commerce
is dependent on infrastructure that was initially constructed in the
1960s and 1970s, and is quickly approaching the end of its shelf life.
So as the flood waters recede across the Nation, it is important
for this Committee to continue its bipartisan commitment to work and
pass critical water resources legislation. We can't afford another year
of flooded homes and washed out farmlands. The American people deserve
better than this.
I look forward to hearing about the Corps' implementation of the
recent WRDAs, and hearing constructive ideas from our witnesses across
both panels on addressing our future water resources infrastructure
needs.
Mr. Westerman. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman, for your
statement. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio, the chairman of the
full committee.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady and thank her for
holding this hearing to kick off the 2020 Water Resources
Development Act authorization. The former chairman, Bill
Shuster, got us back on track with doing an authorization every
2 years, and I fully intend to continue in that tradition.
The Corps functions are so critical to many parts of the
Nation, whether we are talking about navigation or we are
talking about flood control or we are talking about ecosystem
restoration, other missions, anticipation of severe climate
events with changes in the climate. The Corps operates 2,200
levees, 700 dams, largest producer of clean, renewable
hydropower in the United States of America. Many of its
functions are critical and benefit us every day.
WRDA provides direction to the Corps, and we will, as I
said, do a 2020 bill, but we do want to look back at the past
bills and see whether these bills and the reforms and programs
that they proposed have been implemented as intended, and it is
also critical, and I am not going to press the Secretary on
this.
We had a former colleague who sat in that role a number of
years ago, and I asked him. I said, ``Is this budget adequate
to do what the Corps needs to do?'' And he said, ``No, it
isn't.'' And the next Monday, he decided he wanted to leave his
job for family purposes. So, I am not going to put you on that
spot, but as much as possible, you have got to advocate for and
tell us your needs so that we can anticipate them.
I also intend to fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund for its intended lawful purpose, stop diverting funds to
other parts of the Government, and recapture the funds that
have been essentially sequestered somewhere in the bowels of
the Treasury on a computer or somewhere. So, that bill passed
out of committee.
I am pushing my leadership to move that bill through the
House on a daily basis. We have less than 40 percent
utilization to authorized depths at the 50 largest harbors in
America. Other places in my district and others, you know,
jetties are crumbling and the faster and the more they fail,
the more they cost to repair, and we have got to get at these
tasks. We have got to unlock those funds and get the job done.
So, I welcome the Secretary and the General here today, and
I mean no disrespect, but I have to go to deal with some
aviation issues, but there will be, I am certain, much interest
on the committee, and we look forward to your testimony. Thank
you for being here, and thanks to the other witnesses also.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
For nearly 200 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has
played a central role in addressing the Nation's water resources needs
for navigation, flood protection, ecosystem restoration, and other
missions. The Corps is crucial in managing our Nation's infrastructure,
operating nearly 2,200 levee systems and 700 dams across the US, and is
the largest producer of hydropower in the country.
Yet, the first step in any Corps project or activity comes through
authorization in a water resources development act (or WRDA). Regular
enactment of WRDAs provides this Committee with the opportunity to
oversee the Corps' implementation of projects and to ensure that the
Corps remains responsive to national, regional, and local priorities,
as well as a to a changing climate. It is for this reason that the
Committee intends to develop and approve a WRDA 2020 bill next year.
Today, we will also examine whether the Corps is implementing prior
Water Resources Development Acts as Congress intended. This means
issuing implementation guidance in a timely manner and including in
their budget requests and work plans necessary funding of authorized
Corps projects.
I want to reiterate the need for the administration to request
funding for authorized projects. Not funding authorized projects leaves
the Corps with only two options--slow projects down or carry out fewer
projects. Both options are unacceptable. Shortchanging the Corps
impacts their ability to carry out its missions, implement
congressional directives, and operate in a timely fashion.
You can be sure I will continue to work to enact the next WRDA and
to build on the successes of the last two Congresses in the full
utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. My bill was passed
out of Committee by voice vote last month and awaits consideration by
the Full House. H.R. 2440 honors our long-term commitment to U.S.
shippers and taxpayers by using the Trust Fund proceeds for their
intended purposes. Through this legislation, approximately $34 billion
in harbor maintenance taxes will be available over the next decade to
maintain our harbors and ports.
Rising tides raise all ships--and enactment of this legislation
will pave the way for further adjustments in WRDA to ensure all our
nation's ports--large and small--are maintained to their appropriate
widths and depths and that the unique needs of all our harbors,
including our largest ports, can be addressed.
Secretary James and General Spellmon, thank you for being here
today. I look forward to working with you to provide much needed
assistance to our communities in maintaining our Nation's ports,
harbors, and environment.
Let's implement WRDA 2018, fund these important projects and
studies, and move forward to WRDA 2020.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, and now, I yield
to the ranking member for the full committee, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member Westerman for holding this obviously very important
hearing. In the past, as it has been pointed out already, the
past three Congresses, this committee has passed three WRDA
bills, and I look forward to doing that again in another one in
the law in 2020.
As we look at the future needs of our country and one of
the most relevant issues continues to be the extensive flooding
that we are seeing on the Mississippi River and the Missouri
River Basins. In 2011, we thought that we had learned our
lesson from a historic Missouri River flooding incident, but
once again, here we are 8 years later, and we find ourselves in
even worse shape. While we don't know what the full cost of
this flooding season is going to be, we anticipate that it is
probably going to be several billion dollars and the costs of
flood damage are extensive and includes agricultural losses,
business interruption, infrastructure damage, and individual
and public assistance.
The first levee breaches in my district occurred in mid-
March and some ground has been underwater ever since then,
flooded for almost 4 months. When farmland is flooded for that
long, it can be completely covered in sand, in sediment, and
what that does is render it unusable for many years. In my
district, I have 81 levee systems and almost 3,000 miles of
levees protecting highly productive farmland and thousands of
residents and businesses along the Missouri River, and the
Mississippi River for that matter.
Virtually every levee from Iowa to Kansas City overtopped
our breach from the initial March event, and again in May and
June with those flooding events. Almost every levee downstream
of Kansas City it overtopped, they overtopped and breached, and
when levees breach and residents have a very short period of
time to collect what belongings they can and get to higher
ground, thousands of acres of farmland become utterly
devastated and may never see a crop again. Road closures cost
businesses, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants,
retailers, you name it, other businesses, it costs them a lot
of income and ultimately, it costs local jurisdictions a lot of
revenue. States, counties, cities, and a lot of other local
entities are going to continue to have to spend money that they
simply don't have for critical infrastructure repair and
municipal services.
The most important impacts of the flood are the impacts on
people. I have neighbors, friends, and family that have all
been devastated by this flooding event and the displacement and
disruption of people's lives is more than just dollars and
cents. It is a disruption of their peace of mind, their feeling
of safety, and the prospect of having to pick up the pieces and
try to rebuild their lives and their communities.
Missourians are tough and we are going to get through this
together, but we can't lose perspective on what was really lost
here as we strive for better outcomes from the public policy
that we are going to debate here in Congress. It is very
important that we hear from our witnesses today about the
devastation that this flood has caused, but it is just as
important to hear what we think the future needs to be when it
comes to managing the upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers,
and I believe personally that we are asking the Corps of
Engineers to balance too many priorities and that when life,
property, and safety are at stake that flood control has to be
the number one priority.
From Gavins Point Dam to the mouth of the Missouri River,
we are slated to spend only $13 million on annual levee
maintenance while at the same time, we are slated to spend
$30.7 million on wildlife reclamation and habitat creation in
that same stretch of river. The fact of the matter is there has
to be some adjustments made on the consideration of people's
lives and their property.
And with that, Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing
from the witnesses today, and I yield back.
[Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
In the past three Congresses, this Committee has passed three Water
Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), and I look forward to again working
together to enact another one into law in 2020.
As we look at the future water needs of the country, one of the
most relevant issues continues to be the extensive flooding on the
Upper Mississippi and Missouri River Basins. Back in 2011, we thought
we had learned our lesson after the historic Missouri River flooding,
but once again, eight years later, we find ourselves in even worse
shape.
While we don't know what the full cost of this flooding season will
be, we anticipate that it is probably going to be several billion
dollars. The costs of flood damage are extensive and include
agriculture losses, business interruption, infrastructure damage, and
individual and public assistance.
The first levee breaches in my district occurred in mid-March, and
some ground has been underwater ever since then--flooded for almost
four months. When farmland is flooded for that long, it can be
completely covered in sand and sediment, rendering it unusable for
years.
My district has about 81 levee systems and 2,552 miles of levees
protecting highly productive farmland and thousands of residents and
businesses along the Missouri River alone. Virtually every levee from
Iowa to Kansas City overtopped or breached from the initial March
event. And again in the May and June flooding events, almost every
levee downstream of Kansas City overtopped or breached.
When levees breach, residents often only have a few hours to
collect what belongings they can to get out of danger; thousands of
acres of farmland become utterly devastated and may never see a crop
again; road closures cost gas stations, restaurants, retailers, and
other businesses income; and ultimately, it costs local jurisdictions a
lot of revenue. States, counties, cities, and a lot of other local
entities are going to continue to have to spend money they simply don't
have for critical infrastructure repairs and municipal services.
But the most important impacts of floods are the impacts on people.
These are my neighbors, friends, and family. The displacement and
disruption of people's lives is more than just dollars and cents. It's
a disruption of their peace of mind, their feeling of safety, and the
prospect of having to pick up the pieces and trying to rebuild their
lives and their community.
Missourians are tough. And we will get through this together. But
we cannot lose perspective of what was really lost here as we strive
for better outcomes from the public policy that we debate in Congress.
It is very important that we hear from our witnesses today about
the devastation this flood has caused. But it is just as important to
hear what we think the future needs to be when it comes to managing the
Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
I believe, personally, that we are asking the Corps of Engineers to
balance too many priorities--and that when life, property, and safety
are at stake, flood control must always be priority number one. From
Gavins Point Dam to the mouth of the Missouri River, we are slated to
spend only $13 million on annual levee maintenance, while we are slated
to spend $30.7 million on wildlife reclamation and habitat creation in
that same stretch of river. The fact of the matter is there must be
some adjustments made for the consideration of people's lives and
property.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves. I now ask unanimous
consent that the letters from the Florida Ports Council and the
National Marine Manufacturers Association be included in the
record in support of WRDA 2020.
[Florida Ports Council and National Marine Manufacturers
Association's letters are on pages 117-120.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Now, we will proceed to hear from the
witnesses, who will testify, and thank all of you for being
here, both of you.
For panel 1, we have the Honorable R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, and we welcome you. Hello.
Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General
for Civil and Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of
Engineers. Welcome to both of you.
Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
into the record, and all witnesses are asked to limit their
oral remarks to 5 minutes, and Secretary James, you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. R.D. JAMES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
FOR CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS); AND MAJOR GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, DEPUTY
COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. James. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
Westerman, and all distinguished members of this committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I have been the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works for 15 months and my goals today are the same as they
were when I started: focus on outcomes, expedite the process,
and move dirt, making the best use of all available funds.
Since last year, I have had the pleasure to meet with many of
you to discuss your views on the Army Civil Works program. Your
input is appreciated, and I remain committed to working with
each of you.
The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $4.8 billion for the
Corps, focusing on investments that will yield high economic
and environmental returns or address a significant risk to
public safety. This budget relies on a foundation of strong
relationships between the Corps and local communities. It
allows us to work together to help manage, develop, restore,
and protect their water resources and infrastructure.
The budget focuses on the three main mission areas of the
Corps of Engineers: flood control, commercial navigation, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration. The fiscal year 2020 budget
supports a Corps program that has a diverse set of tools and
approaches to working with local communities, whether this
means funding projects with our cost-sharing partners,
providing planning assistance and technical expertise, or
participating in the national and international conversations
on how to best address our future water resource challenges.
The budget helps improve our efforts on resiliency and
sustainability. The budget also funds two new, innovative
programs in the construction account. One of them is the 1043
program, and it is budgeted for $150 million, and that's where
the Corps could transfer appropriated funds to a sponsor who
desired to construct a project on their own.
There is another one, the Innovative Funding Partnerships
program, also funded at $150 million to be used in conjunction
with funds voluntarily provided by non-Federal interests in
excess of the non-Federal cost-share to accelerate completion
of construction of specifically authorized projects.
In addition, the budget proposed to extend the
authorization for section 1043 of WRRDA 2014 as amended, which
under current law expired on June 10th of this year.
Since the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2018, the Chief of Engineers has issued a report with
recommendations on 15 proposed water resource projects. I
provided a detailed list of all of those projects in my
official statement that I have submitted to this committee.
Since receiving my appointment to ASA(CW), I focused on how
the Corps executes all available funds. This involves
identifying needed investments and ensuring that we complete
execution in a more cost-effective and efficient way. This
approach will ensure a better return on the taxpayer's
investment and better the lives of Americans.
Under my oversight and direction, and with the help of
Lieutenant General Semonite and his team, such as General
Spellmon, the Corps is committed to improving the performance
of the Civil Works program. The Corps also is using its
engineering expertise and relationships with project partners
and stakeholders to develop new approaches to address some of
the most pressing water resources challenges facing our Nation.
And I would like to say there that I feel like the Corps
got away from working with their partners. I am talking about
the local people on the ground that the district engineers work
with regularly, and we are trying to get back to that. We are
trying to invite our partners to meetings, we are trying to
make them a part of the process and the decisions that we make
as Corps of Engineers, and I feel that is very important.
Improving performance and timely delivery of quality
products continue to be one of my highest priorities. To that
end, I have completed the guidance for all provisions of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018 and much to my
distress, I discovered that when I took this office in February
of 2018, there was guidance outstanding due to this committee
from 2014 and 2016.
I pledged to myself that after the WRDA 2018 was passed, we
would not let that happen. I instructed my team to have all
guidance out by April the 15th, and we did that with the
exception of two, but I am proud to tell you today that all of
our guidance has been submitted to the committee.
I am committed to ensuring that the United States Army
Corps of Engineers continues to do what it does better than any
other organization in the world, identify the best ways to
manage, design, construct, restore, and protect water resources
and its infrastructure. My goal is to achieve the highest
economic, environmental, and public safety return for the
Nation, which will benefit all our citizens.
Thank you for inviting me here today, and I look forward to
taking any of your questions.
[Hon. James' and Major General Spellmon's prepared joint
statement follows Major General Spellmon's oral remarks.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Major General Spellmon, you are recognized.
General Spellmon. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about the implementation of recent Water
Resources Development Acts, execution of the Corps Civil Works
program, and our ongoing flood fights across the Nation. Again,
my name is Major General Scott Spellmon. I'm the Corps Deputy
Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations.
I would like to first acknowledge the widespread
devastation and serious impacts this year's flooding is
creating for many people across the country. The Assistant
Secretary and I have witnessed these impacts first-hand during
our many visits to the field. Throughout our Corps personnel
have been working tirelessly to help mitigate the effects of
these events by providing assistance to States and local
communities.
This year's flood season continues to challenge many
Federal and State agencies as well as many local governments.
At our highest point, we had over 400 river gauges indicating
flood stage across the country, and over 183 reported ice jams
in our Nation's rivers. In the Ohio River Valley, this past
fall and winter were the wettest on record in the past 124
years and we have seen record reservoir levels in our
Cumberland River projects. Our personnel industry had been in
the flood fight for over 200 days and counting.
Our Mississippi Valley division has been in the flood fight
on the Mississippi River for the past 260 days and will
continue at least for the next several weeks. For the first
time in its 88-year history, we opened a Bonnet Carre spillway
twice in one season, which has now been operating for 106 days.
Within the Mississippi Yazoo Backwater Delta, record water
levels have impacted thousands of acres of agricultural land as
well as many communities.
Upstream of St. Louis, the Mississippi reached its second
highest stage ever recorded, and even this week, we are closely
monitoring a low pressure system in the Gulf of Mexico that may
evolve and produce a surge elevating the lower Mississippi
River to 19 feet above sea level as early as this Friday.
On the Missouri River, the flood event that began on March
13th was a combination of rainfall, warm temperatures, and
rapid snow melt all on top of saturated and frozen soil. This
condition covered a large area, including central and western
Nebraska, southeastern South Dakota, western Iowa, and portions
of northern Missouri and Kansas.
The ensuing runoff drained into uncontrolled tributaries
that were already subject to ice jam conditions as I mentioned,
and this combination of events led to record discharges on a
number of rivers where we reached major flood stage in less
than 48 hours. This event is still ongoing, as prolonged
rainfall continues to bring river stages well out of bank from
Omaha to the Missouri's confluence with the Mississippi just
above St. Louis.
On the Arkansas River, the flood event that began in May
was also due to intense and prolonged rainfall again on top of
saturated soils that led to record stages and flows from Tulsa,
Oklahoma, to the river's confluence with the Mississippi. This
event is also ongoing as well, and many of our reservoirs in
this region have also established new pools of record.
In many of these watersheds, our Corps dams and reservoirs
have prevented even more significant flooding downstream of
those projects, averting millions of dollars in additional
property damage as well as saving countless lives. Today, I
want to assure the committee that our Corps' number one
priority in all of our operations remains life and public
safety as we continue to address the many flooding challenges
across the country. As of this morning, we have identified over
160 levee breaches that require repair and we are working with
States and non-Federal sponsors to expedite that work.
We also want to thank this committee and the Congress for
the authorities and flexibilities it has provided the Corps to
address these and many other challenges. These tools
accompanied with record levels of Civil Works appropriations
for the Civil Works program are making a positive difference.
You may have heard our Chief of Engineers speak to the ongoing
efforts to revolutionize the way we do business as an
enterprise. The authorities provided by this committee continue
to enable his initiative.
We are working to modernize the traditional delivery of the
Civil Works program by utilizing innovative tools to accelerate
project delivery, exploring alternative financing approaches
and streamlining our internal processes to improve permitting
and regulatory actions.
I look forward to highlighting these improvements to our
project delivery during our session today and welcome any
questions that you may have. Thank you.
[Hon. James' and Major General Spellmon's prepared joint
statement follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement of Hon. R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) and Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding
General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman and distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to discuss the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works
program and the status of implementation of recent Water Resources
Development Acts.
I have been in the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
(ASA(CW)) position for 15 months and my goals today are the same as
they were when I started, to focus on outcomes, over process, in order
to make the best use of the available funds. Since last year I have had
the pleasure to meet with most of you one on one to discuss your views
on the Corps Civil Works program. That input is appreciated and I
remain committed to working with each of you.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget provides over $4.8 billion for the
Corps, with a focus on investments that will yield high economic and
environmental returns or address a significant risk to public safety.
This Budget relies on a foundation of strong relationships between the
Corps and local communities, which allow us to work together to help
manage, develop, restore, and protect their water resources. The Budget
focuses on the highest performing work within the three main mission
areas of the Corps, which are:
commercial navigation;
flood and storm damage reduction; and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The FY 2020 Budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
of tools and approaches to working with local communities, whether this
means funding projects with our cost-sharing partners, providing
planning assistance and technical expertise to help communities make
better informed decisions, or participating in the national and
international conversations on how to best address our future water
resources challenges. The Budget helps us maintain and improve our
efforts on resiliency and sustainability--one of the challenges
associated with the ways that we have used our water and related land
resources in the past.
The Budget also funds two new, innovative programs in the
Construction account:
$150 million for the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) Section 1043 Non-Federal
Construction of Federal Projects program, under which the Corps would
transfer appropriated funds to non-Federal sponsors who decide to
construct a project on their own. This approach will improve project
delivery and achieve cost savings; and
$150 million for the Innovative Funding Partnerships
program, which would be used in conjunction with funds voluntarily
provided by non-Federal interests in excess of the non-Federal cost
share to accelerate the completion of construction of specifically
authorized projects.
In addition, the Budget proposed to extend the authorization for
Section 1043 of WRRDA 2014, as amended, which under current law expired
on June 10, 2019.
Since the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018
(WRDA 2018), the Chief of Engineers has issued a report with
recommendations on the following eight proposed water resources
projects:
Little Colorado River (Winslow), Arizona
Sacramento-San Joaquin, Delta Islands and Levees,
California
Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's County,
Maryland
Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island
City of Norfolk, Virginia
Souris River Basin, North Dakota
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study--Brandon
Road, Illinois
Yuba River Fish Passage (Englebright and Daguerre Point
Dams), California
Since receiving my appointment to be ASA(CW), I've focused on how
the Corps executes its funds. This involves identifying the highest
priority investments and ensuring that we finish that work in a more
timely and efficient way. This approach will ensure a better return on
taxpayer's investment and better the lives of Americans. Under my
oversight and direction and with the help of Lieutenant General
Semonite and his team, the Corps is committed to working on improving
the performance of the Civil Works program. The Corps also is using its
engineering expertise and its relationships with project sponsors and
stakeholders to develop new approaches to address some of the most
pressing water resources challenges facing the Nation.
Improving performance and timely delivery of quality products
continues to be one of my highest priorities. To that end, we have
completed the guidance for all provisions of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016 and the WRDA 2018 that we determined will
require such guidance.
I am committed to ensuring that the Corps continues to do what it
does better than any other organization in the world, which is to
identify the best ways to manage, develop, restore, and protect water
resources. Our goal is to achieve a high economic, environmental, and
public safety return for the Nation, which will benefit all Americans.
Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I look forward to your
questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, General Spellmon and Secretary
James for your testimony. We will now recognize individual
Members for up to 5 minutes each for questions, and I will
start with the questions to both of you.
In many parts of the country, we are experiencing more
extreme weather events. The Midwest is flooding, and outside
this year, the West has been in extreme drought other than for
a little bit of water. How is the Corps century-old
infrastructure adapting to deal with the changing conditions of
today?
Mr. James. Ma'am, we are taking that very seriously in all
that we are trying to do. We have initiated several different
databases, and we are working with the other agencies like the
USGS, the monitoring. This past budget, I entered $3 million
for gauges in the upper Mississippi River System looking at the
snowpack and plains pack in that system.
I intend to try to do the same thing in other systems as
well as California, but we are not standing by idly and
building as usual. We are trying to keep an eye to the future
and build in a way that what we do build will serve us all for
years to come.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, with recent seismic events, were
there any problems that you encountered that you were going to
have to look at for all dams?
Mr. James. Which events, ma'am?
Mrs. Napolitano. The earthquake in California.
Mr. James. Oh, my goodness. I can't say that I am an
earthquake expert. I do say that anything we build in the
future, and I am not sure that we haven't done it in the past,
but in the future, as far as infrastructure from the Corps of
Engineers, we built for seismic resistance. Even though I live
on the New Madrid earthquake fault, I am still not an expert on
earthquakes.
General Spellmon. So, may I, if I could just add. We have
had our structural, our geotechs, our engineers out on the
three dams that are closest to the most recent earthquakes in
California: the Isabella Dam, the Success Dam, and the Terminus
Dam, and we have had no significant issues to report.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can you talk about the Corps role in the
forecast-informed reservoir operations--FIRO--in helping Corps
projects adapt to meet current and future needs for the
communities they serve?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, I will start. Our intent
is to continue our partnership with the State and local
entities as well as academia as we advance this pilot. This
pilot began in 2014 and we will wrap it up this year. We are,
frankly, excited about the early results we had at the
atmospheric river, as you recall, ma'am, back in February, and
we were able to use some of the data and advanced monitoring
technology to actually make reservoir decisions long before
this water hit the ground.
So, we will wrap up that report here this year and we will
look for opportunities where else in the Nation that this
technology may apply.
Mrs. Napolitano. How soon can we expect the ability of the
Corps to work this program into other types?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, the technology that I had
a chance to briefly talk with you before the hearing. The
technology that we are talking about is very good for these
types of conditions that we are talking about on the west
coast. We are not certain yet scientifically that this same
technology will apply to some of the weather patterns that we
saw this year, say, over Arkansas or Oklahoma or the upper
Midwest. We have more work to do.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Secretary James, your testimony
highlights a provision that reserves $150 million for projects
where the non-Federal sponsors willing to contribute more jump
the line. How does this innovative partnership help small,
rural, and disadvantaged communities partner with the Corps?
Mr. James. I think the purpose of this process and this
innovative funding will allow people that have the money to do
that to move forward and do it. I am not sure it will put them
in front of the line of those like myself that has to stay
under the original cost share agreement. That is not what it is
intended for. I don't think it will work that way.
I am still working with the administration right now to get
a better handle on how they want this program to work. When you
read it, it doesn't look too good. Like, if you have got the
money, put your money up and you can move out, but I am not
sure. I don't think that is what they intend for us to do, but
I am working on finding out.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, would it be sure that the small
communities are not disadvantaged?
Mr. James. Yes, absolutely. That is one of my concerns, not
with this particular proposal by the administration. That
doesn't concern me too much, but overall, I am concerned about
the areas of this country that do not have the money to put up
for infrastructure and for protection. I do not want to leave
those people out. They deserve----
Mrs. Napolitano. We should not. We should not leave them
out.
Mr. James. No, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman. Secretary James and
General Spellmon, thank you not only for your testimony today,
but for the job you do and your service to our country in an
area that is extremely important.
When we talk about safety and the economy and the
environment and all those things, and as I have mentioned
earlier in my testimony, we did see unprecedented flooding on
the Arkansas River this year. You know, to put it in
perspective, the river typically flows around 40,000 cubic feet
per second. When it gets to 80,000 cubic feet, you really don't
want to be on a small boat in the river or maybe even on the
river at all, but we were seeing flow rates of 500,000 to
600,000 cubic feet per second. Just an enormous amount of water
coming down the river.
I was with the Governor and others from our congressional
delegation on the bridge in Fort Smith there on the Arkansas-
Oklahoma line and really was, with all the flooding, the
intensity of it, as an engineer I was pretty impressed with the
way that infrastructure held up, and when we saw in the
magnitude of 1,000 homes flooded, we saw a lot of farmland
flooded, but we saw relatively few levee failures and the
infrastructure held up better than I think anyone expected for
the condition it was in.
General Owen and some others there worked well with our
State, but in the aftermath of that, at the end of June,
Governor Hutchinson ordered a review of Arkansas' levees and
created a task force to study and analyze the condition of our
levees and Secretary James, I know you mentioned it is one of
your objectives to work closer with the local officials, and
you know, that is statewide in the districts as well, but how
is the Corps working with Arkansas and other States who have
seen their levee systems damaged to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the levee system?
Mr. James. I will let General Spellmon talk to that, but I
can tell you right now, we aren't able to do a lot because the
water hasn't fallen enough for us to get in there and get the
soil probings and all we need to see what needs to happen.
I can assure you one thing that will happen without any
technology or scientific data. When these waters go down in all
of these systems, we are going to have major levee slides that
are going to have to be prepared before the next flood season.
Any time we have water as high as it has been for as long as it
has been, then when the water goes down, geotechnically,
something happens to that soil and it slides off on the
riverside of that levee, and that hasn't been reported to you
yet at all, but it will be coming because it will happen.
I will let the general talk to you, sir, just a moment
about how we are moving out so far.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We have to do this hand in hand
with local sponsors, not Federal sponsors, who actually own and
operate these levees, whether Federal levees or non-Federal
levees inside the rehabilitation program so we can, at the
appropriate time, get the right designs done and move the money
to get these repairs done as expeditiously as possible.
Sir, I would just state today, we have $1.9 billion in
known damages on our Nation's levee systems. That is primarily
in the reach from Omaha down to Kansas City where the water has
fallen enough for us to do the detailed assessments, but from
St. Louis, sir, all the way down to New Orleans, and then
certainly in your region, we have got to get this water down so
we can do the detailed work, and come back to the Secretary and
the Chief with our requirements.
Mr. Westerman. But you are all hands on deck working with
the State and local officials, and----
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Not just in Arkansas, but in other areas as
well.
General Spellmon. Everywhere, sir.
Mr. Westerman. All right. So, last WRDA I worked with Mr.
Garamendi to pass a clean reauthorization of the National Levee
Safety Initiative to extend its authorization to 2023. Given
the severity of flooding and the impacts to our Nation's levees
just these past few months, it is essential for the Corps to
develop more efficient methods to inspect and collect and
maintain data in the National Levee Database.
I understand you are testing some pilot programs. I am out
of time, but I hope that somewhere, you will be able to talk
about innovations in the levee programs.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, and we would welcome the
opportunity to come see you one on one and walk you through
where we are and where we are going with that program.
Mr. Westerman. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr.--what is your name?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
Going to my side. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, you are recognized.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you and good morning. First, I want to thank the Army
Corps for accepting my invitation to come down to south Florida
to Monroe County for that public meeting to understand the
effects of the Lake Okeechobee and how you regulate that lake
and how that effects the livelihood in south Florida.
So, thank you for that, and as you know, the Everglades is
such an important and critical component of water quality and
for the livelihood for Floridians. The success of restoring the
Everglades is really going to rely on partnerships and
collaborations between State and Federal agencies, including
the Army Corps, and central to this management is the inflow
that comes into Lake Okeechobee, but also managing the
discharges from the lake.
I find it completely unacceptable that the lake has
released contaminated water after Congress has appropriated
hundreds of millions of dollars for Everglades restoration in
the past 19 years, and that the communities living in the east
and west of Lake Okeechobee have received high levels of green-
blue algae that have killed fish, that has sent children to the
hospitals. We are experiencing such a crisis, a public health
crisis in our communities because of the high toxicity that is
coming from the Lake Okeechobee.
Also, in the South, hundreds of thousands of acres of
seagrass has died because of low levels of water coming down
from Lake Okeechobee. So, clearly something is just not
working, and I know that there is a long history. We can talk
about what has happened in the past, but I want to take this
opportunity to understand what we need to do and to do a better
job of protecting the public health as we are regulating the
lake.
So, General Spellmon, I know that you mentioned that your
mission and your goal is, or the priority is the life and
public safety of your communities which I think I would assume
public health is a part of that as well. So, who do you think
needs to be at the table involved in making these decisions
managing the health of the lake and the discharges, and what
can the Corps specifically do to avoid another disaster, which
we saw last summer?
General Spellmon. So, the first question. Everyone has to
be at the table. The Federal partners, not just the Corps, but
also all the State and local agencies, and we think we have
that in our governance meetings where Colonel Kelly makes the
decisions on releases.
I would just say also as a general statement that the Corps
is all in. We are going to use all of our operational
flexibility from our water control manual at Lake Okeechobee to
our construction capabilities as well as our research
capabilities to help the State deal with this water quality
issue.
There are no short-term solutions, ma'am, to the broad
problem that you outlined, but there are a number of projects
ongoing all around that lake that will contribute to the long-
term solution for your constituents.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Who is right now responsible for
measuring the algae levels in the lake?
General Spellmon. Measuring?
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. The levels of toxicity in the lake?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, I think that is probably
the Florida Department of Health. Possibly the Centers for
Disease Control. The folks in the medical community that deal
with water quality.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And are you in close communication
with these departments?
General Spellmon. Yes.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Would you be able to provide to me a
plan, a communication plan, on once you understand the levels
of toxicity what the next steps are before you decide to
release that water.
General Spellmon. Yes. We can share with you how we govern
our governance process that is the decisionmaking that our
district commander goes through when he is deciding where and
when to release.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. OK, and what do you think we can do in
Congress at the Federal level to help reduce the risk of the
toxicity, both in the short term and the long term as we
release the water into our communities?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. As I said, there is a number
of, probably about 64 in total in the south Florida ecosystem
restoration program that will need continual investment over
the ensuing years so that we can get the infrastructure in
place to help the State deal with this water quality issue.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Will the $200 million that I requested
that has been approved and appropriated to continue the
Everglades restoration project be helpful, and how quickly can
we expect the completion of that project?
General Spellmon. So, yes, ma'am. Absolutely. It's going to
help us expedite this program. So, with the $200 million and
the President's budget request, we will complete the Kissimmee
River restoration next year. We will continue our construction
and oversight for the C-43 West Storage Basin. We will continue
our construction oversight in design for the Indian River
Lagoon South on the east side of Lake Okeechobee. That project
will be complete in 2022, and of course, we will continue our
development and planning with the South Florida Water
Management District for the design of the Everglades
Agricultural Area Reservoir. That is all next year.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, General.
I yield back my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, and just I want to
follow up on Ranking Member Westerman. You said that your
preliminary numbers between Omaha and Kansas City are $1.9
billion?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And----
General Spellmon. That is for the levees that we can get
down to the toe and actually do adequate assessments. We know
there are many more levees that have----
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Right----
General Spellmon [continuing]. Been overtopped and damaged
throughout the country.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And obviously that it is going to
take a little while with those assessments. Do you have any
idea what that number might rise to?
General Spellmon. Sir, I don't. It is still raining. We
have got a large storm coming in here this weekend. We have
still got a lot of flow in the upper Missouri River that has
yet to make its way through the basin. Sir, I don't have a good
estimate for you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. So, that is just on those breaches
that you have been able to get into, then.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And real quick, and I don't know if
this is for the Secretary or not, but as far as the Midwest
supplemental goes, when is that money going to hit the ground?
We have kind of got a clock ticking out there.
Mr. James. I am sorry, sir. I didn't understand.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. The Midwest supplemental dollars
that were approved. Do you know when that money is going to be
distributed?
Mr. James. That money has been separated into different
line items at this time. The general may have a paper on that.
I don't, but as soon as we can get our hands on it, which we
don't yet.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. OK.
Mr. James. I don't have the money yet, but it is hopefully
pending quickly, but we can start work on some areas pretty
soon, but doggone it, it is the rivers are still just so high
there is not a lot of work we are going to be able to do. Like,
if we were going to repair a levee, how are we going to get the
bar area?
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Yeah, no. I understand.
Mr. James. Yes, sir, and so, but the money is coming, but
we don't have our hands on it, and I am not sure how it is
divided up.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. OK.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So, that $3\1/4\ billion in
this, the FY 2019 supplemental that is coming to the Corps.
About $2 billion of that, sir, we are able to use nationwide to
deal with some of the damages that we have seen to the levees,
and then also of our Corps projects, our locks and dams.
The investigations account and the construction account,
those are tied to States and regions that were impacted by last
year's hurricanes, Michael and Florence, and also the typhoons
out in the Pacific.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Is there going to be another
supplemental request? I am assuming there will be as we move
forward.
Mr. James. There will have to be. You see how that is
split----
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Yeah----
Mr. James [continuing]. Up already, and I can tell you now
that might not even take care of Missouri, let alone Arkansas.
The rivers now, not the States.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Yeah.
Mr. James. The Arkansas River and the Mississippi River. It
is just hard to tell, but if I were a betting man, I would bet
we will have to have more money to attack the damage that has
been done.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thanks, gentleman.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary James and General Spellmon, I think everyone on
this committee recognizes the extraordinary pressure that you
are under. The flooding across the Nation from the west coast
all the way to the east coast and everything in between. We
appreciate your service. We appreciate the challenge that you
face.
I will draw your attention to the reality of change and
that the way in which we have conducted flood operations in the
past has been based on historic situations. We are no longer in
such a situation. There is a project that has been ongoing in
California now for several years called the forecast-informed
reservoir operations program, drawing the attention of the
committee to that, this is based upon real-time information
that is now available from satellites and other technologies
that are available, and we appreciate the implementation of
that on the rivers in California, and I suspect it may be
applicable across the Nation.
Now, I have a whole series of questions that I am just
going to submit for the record. No use taking the time of the
committee or your time here today. Secretary James, projects in
California in the Sacramento Valley do thank you for coming
out--both of you for coming out and observing what we are doing
in the Central Valley.
Interesting article in the Sacramento Bee. If the same
downpour that hit Washington were to hit the American River,
water would be 30 feet deep in Sacramento, so we know we have
problems across the Nation. Specifically, General Spellmon,
section 204 and section 1043 provide flexibility for local
agencies to conduct programs. Without going into the detail,
could you please explain why the Corps is so reluctant to move
aggressively using these authorities to devolve programs and
construction to the local agencies?
General Spellmon. Sir, I would say we do want to
aggressively use them. We are after anything, any authority or
capability that will allow us to, as the Secretary would say,
move dirt or get to construction or complete projects quicker.
So, sir, if there are examples in your district where we are
not doing that, we would like to know and to take action.
Mr. Garamendi. We will so inform you. There has been a
reluctance to move forward aggressively using these programs,
and if that were to happen, projects would be completed
quicker, possibly sooner. I can give you one specific example
on the Feather River, where the quarry did not allow the local
agency to undertake the project, when it would have saved
significant money. Probably an issue for the rest of the Nation
as you deal with the flooding that is occurring in the Midwest.
I will leave it at that. I do draw the attention of the
committee to the reality of change and the necessity for the
flood operations to reflect the new reality and to use
information that is now available from multiple areas,
satellites to other technologies.
With that, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary James, General Spellmon, I want to thank you very
much for being here today and thank you for your testimony.
I think you are familiar with the watershed. The
Mississippi River watershed. Certainly, Secretary James, you
spent a good bit of time working on that in your career. Right
now, we are facing a scenario, as you heard other Members talk
about how in Baton Rouge, in my hometown, we are seeing 1.3
million cubic feet of water pass per second through that river
system, one of the largest watersheds in the world.
We now, as you know, have a tropical depression in the Gulf
of Mexico that appears to be coming up in the next few days
that, by some model projections, is going to cause the
Mississippi River levees to overflow because of that higher
storm surge coming in at the bottom of the levee system.
We are draining water from Montana to New York to Canada,
all through this huge watershed. What do you say to the folks
in Louisiana? What do you say to them that we are draining
water from all of these other States? As you know, the inputs
into that river system were minimal from Louisiana and because
of this huge amount of water that is coming from them, coming
from all these other States, and now the storm surge is going
to cause overtopping.
It is not our water overtopping. It is everybody else's
water overtopping. We have seen impacts to our fisheries, our
commercial fisheries, and our recreational fisheries as a
result of the Bonnet Carre spillway. And General, as you
mentioned in your testimony, normally open once every 10 years
since the 1930s when it was built. We have opened it four times
in the past 4 years. As you mentioned, the first time in
history twice this year. Twice in 1 year. What do you say to
people down there when we are experiencing the flooding because
of what is happening in the upper basin?
Mr. James. Well, if it wasn't so serious and if I didn't
think it would be taken the wrong way, I would say, ``You
better move,'' but it is serious and there is so much industry
and economic return to this Nation from Baton Rouge to New
Orleans, and also over in the Atchafalaya, some of the other
estuaries down there that we can't say, ``You better move.''
That would be very silly, so what we have got to do is start
addressing the problems based on, like, Mr. Garamendi said, on
what we know now, not what we knew in the 1930s, the 1940s, and
in the 1950s.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And Mr. Secretary, we are giving
you all an opportunity to do that and the WRDA bill became law
last year. We included a provision all over every controlled
structure looking at how to do a better job managing the water
on Atchafalaya, Red, the Mississippi River system, and better
utilize old river control structure. As I understand, you are
looking at a 3-year study. I just don't think we have 3 years.
You heard the urgency from Ranking Member Graves and
others, and Ranking Member Westerman about this issue. I don't
think we have that kind of time, and I want to urge you to move
quickly, and you are right. We can't move. We are 1 of the top
energy producing States in the Nation, top commercial fisheries
producing State in the Nation, 5 of the top 15 ports in the
Nation. You can't replicate this capacity elsewhere.
I want to pivot and go off what Congressman Garamendi and I
know Congressman Rouda who is here has concerns about this as
well. You mentioned it in your testimony. Section 1043. The
Corps of Engineers has $100 billion backlog in authorized
projects. One hundred billion dollars.
One of the ways we can help to speed up the implementation
of these projects and help to break down this backlog is to use
section 1043 which provides for local sponsors, State and local
sponsors to carry the project out. This became law in 2014. The
guidance was just issued in June, nearly 4 years later, and so
I think that I actually want to follow on Congressman
Garamendi's comments.
It does appear that maybe the urgency is not there, and
then as you know, in 2018, WRDA bill, Congress extended it. The
implementation guidance, we did extend it. There is one
technical issue in the extension that I think has become a
problem, but if there is a desire on the part of the
administration to continue this and to utilize this as a tool
to address this backlog and deepening rivers and improving
flood protection, ecological restoration and other Corps
functions, we need to figure out how to get to yes, not how to
get to no.
Can you talk a little bit about how we are going to move
forward on 1043 and what some of your experience is with McCook
Reservoir in Harris County using 1043 to implement?
Mr. James. The experience so far is very good. We have not
had any problems. Now, McCook was done a little differently
because it was a new venture. The way we did that we won't be
doing again I don't think, but as far as Harris County, they
are tickled to death with it. It is letting them do what they
needed to do, own those reservoirs down there. It is a good
tool for the people that can afford it. There is no doubt
that----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Secretary, the 140-page
guidance that you all issued in June basically says that you
all just acknowledged it. It basically is going to be useless
at this point because the program expired, yet we did extend it
in WRDA 2018. I just want to ask you if you all could go back,
work with your attorneys, figure out how to get to yes, not to
no, because this is going to be an important tool for us moving
forward.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Ms. Finkenauer.
Ms. Finkenauer. Well, thank you, Assistant Secretary James
and also Major General Spellmon. It is great to have you guys
here with us today. So, I represent Iowa's First Congressional
District right there on the Mississippi. So, I have actually
quite a few questions and if in the interest of time if you can
keep it brief, that would be great.
First, when I met with Colonel Sattinger from Rock Island
back in March, he told me the Cedar Rapids eastern floodwall
project has been fully funded and construction will start this
October. Obviously, great, great news for our community that
was devastated by flooding back in 2008 and desperately needs
that floodwall done.
I was just wondering if we could get an update from you on
the timeline for this project and if there are any remaining
hurdles to getting that job done?
General Spellmon. No, ma'am. No hurdles that I am familiar
with. This year, we have already issued three architect
engineer task orders to commence the design, and as you have
mentioned, we will issue the first two construction contracts
by the end of the fiscal year.
Ms. Finkenauer. Great. Thank you so much, and next, I want
to ask about the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program. Obviously, NESP. This program is obviously critical
for farmers and other shippers in my State who use the
Mississippi to move their products. Congress authorized this
project over a decade ago, but it keeps getting pushed back, so
we know there is a backlog of waterways projects, but this
year, the President has requested a 31-percent cut to the
Corps.
To be clear, the Mississippi River is our competitive edge,
especially at a time when our farmers are getting hit on all
sides due to flooding, but then also because of the trade war,
and this is a time where we need to be investing more in our
waterways and our infrastructure, not less. Can you help me
understand, Secretary James, why the backlog of these projects,
including NESP, has been underfunded and why NESP hasn't moved
forward more quickly?
Mr. James. I have been familiar with NESP in my prior life
as a member of the Mississippi River Commission. In that life,
I really felt like we handled that wrong. Since I got here in
this job, I have discovered that the Congress and the industry
wants to do it as it is: navigation, ecosystem, restoration,
sustainability; together.
Ms. Finkenauer. OK.
Mr. James. And all those years, I didn't think that was a
good idea. I thought we should have them separated so they
could be funded separately. Now, I got here, and I found out
that is not what the people want, so I don't even talk about
that anymore, but let me address the backlog just a minute,
Madam Chairman.
Mr. Graves said $100 billion backlog, and that is what we
put out.
Ms. Finkenauer. Mm-hm.
Mr. James. I am going to be working on that because I don't
believe that. I don't believe we have got a $100 billion
backlog. We have got projects that have been authorized for
years and years and years. I don't consider those backlog. I
only consider projects that have been authorized and
appropriated at least $1 that means the Congress is willing to
put its money where its mouth is, and I call that backlog. It
still----
Ms. Finkenauer. And Secretary James, I am sorry. I am just,
in the interest of time, to follow up on that, if it is not the
backlog or if it is not the money, what do we need to do as a
Congress to move NESP forward?
Mr. James. So far, it has been the lack of will. That is
why it hadn't moved forward, and it is very much needed.
Ms. Finkenauer. As----
Mr. James. Those locks and dams in the upper Mississippi
River are falling apart.
Ms. Finkenauer. They are, and I mean, it is authorized over
a decade ago, and so, I know this is, you know, your oversight
on this as well, and we have got to make sure that we are doing
this, and we are happy to work with you any way we can to make
sure that these projects move forward. They are desperately
needed and thank you for your time as well.
And lastly, I do want to follow up as well just about
flooding in general. As you know, Iowa farmers endured months
of not being able to move their goods down the Mississippi
because of the prolonged flooding. This is only going to get
worse. You know, these so-called 500-year floods are now
happening every 5 years now.
Major General Spellmon, is the Corps ready to manage the
flooding in the Mississippi River, particularly given the need
to balance the Corps' other functions like navigation and
recreation? If we were to redesign how the Army Corps of
Engineers manages the Mississippi River watershed, what do you
think needs to change or actually work differently so you can
more effectively control for flooding?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, after we get through this
next flood fight, every year, we will conduct an after-action
review after we get through this event to see what are the
opportunities where we can further improve our operations up
and down the basin.
Ms. Finkenauer. Would it be helpful to have some research
on that and--? OK. Great. Great. Thank you so much and thank
you both for your time today. This is obviously very important,
and I look forward to continuing these conversations.
Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Finkenauer.
Mr. Weber, you are recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate the opportunity.
I am from the Texas gulf coast. As Secretary James knows,
Hurricane Ike in 2008 hit, Hurricane Harvey a couple of years
ago, and my three coastal counties were ground zero for Harvey
flooding.
The implications are just absolutely astounding and
Secretary James, I was glad to hear you say in your earlier
comments that you feel like you have identified, at least, and
feel like it needs some fixing, obviously, that the Corps has
gotten away from working with local partners. You also said
that improving performance was one of your highest priorities,
and that is good news.
The Texas gulf coast, and one of my good colleague's
friends down there, Sally, a blogger from Galveston, keeps me
reminded on how important this is because we actually--she has
got a sheet for us and I want to make sure that you all are
following the study that is being done about coastal barrier
protections. Some call it the Ike dike. And this affects not
just our district but all across the country, and there is a
whole lot of reasons for that, but just a little history.
The WRDA of 2007 actually authorized the Army Corps to
develop a coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration
plan to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction,
and ecosystem restoration in the coastal areas of Texas. And
like my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Graves, said, things just
aren't happening enough.
A couple of facts that I think my colleagues would be
interested in. In Texas, in our country, in terms of energy,
the Texas gulf coast region produces 27 percent of the Nation's
gasoline, 60 percent of the Nation's aviation fuel, so it has
national security and national economic ramifications. We have
35 percent of the Nation's natural gas production and 42
percent of the Nation's specialty chemical feedstock.
So this has national economic implications, national
security implications, not to mention there are 6 million
people, families, businesses, jobs along the gulf coast that
need protecting. It is not a matter of if we get another
hurricane, it is when. To the general's comment about--I think
he said the depression out in the gulf you are seeing now, you
know, it is just a matter of time and it is going to happen.
There are some studies being done about the implications of
the coastal barrier protection plan that is needed along the
Texas gulf coast, and it starts at the Louisiana border and
goes really all the way down the coast, but mainly in the area
of the gulf coast it does all of the fuel production.
Are you all mindful of that study, Secretary James? The
Army Corps is coming out with some very current stuff called
the Tentatively Selected Plan, TSP. And I know that Colonel
Lars Zetterstrom did a fabulous job, but people are a little
frustrated about the way information was rolled out and the
amount of time it was taking, and quite frankly the plan that
was selected.
Is your office monitoring that situation and are you aware
of the ways that they are developing that plan and what they
are recommending?
Mr. James. I am not, but I will be.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, we would love for you to reach out to
them and get--I don't know what the right word is--boned up on
it so that you know, because it is super, super important to
our district. We have five ports on the Texas gulf coast. Some
have four, but we have five.
We are the 13th largest exporting district in the country
out of 435 Members of Congress. So it is huge. The Port of
Beaumont moves more military personnel and equipment than any
other port in the Nation. So it is huge for national security
and national economic calculations.
For example, when Hurricane Ike hit in 2008, I was told by
John Shimkus even up in Ohio, up in that area, that fuel spiked
about 60 cents a gallon. So we want the Army Corps to be paying
specific, close attention to that and make sure that that is
getting rolled out in a timely fashion and to make sure that
that is a priority, and we would appreciate any feedback you
can give us on that.
General Spellmon, are you aware of it?
General Spellmon. Sir, I am. So I would just say to add to
your comments, this is a very large and complicated project,
and the fact that we have got some energetic comments from the
public and industry back on that draft study is important to us
because we take that all into account, and that is just going
to make that project even better when it does get to----
Mr. Weber. What was the number of those comments?
General Spellmon. Sir, I don't know.
Mr. Weber. Yes.
General Spellmon. It was thousands.
Mr. Weber. Yes, absolutely. I am thinking it was like
8,000. But we really want to focus on the importance of that
and the study that was authorized and the fact that it has huge
implications not just for our area but for the Army, for our
national defense, as well as our economy.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back 1 second.
Oh, and if I may, before I do, I want to say happy birthday
to my colleague on the left, Brian Mast.
Mr. Mast. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, happy birthday. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Malinowski, you are recognized.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate a chance to hear from our witnesses and just to
reiterate our appreciation for the work that the Corps does. It
is vital. It is essential. It is greatly needed. You do it with
too few resources. We all make demands on you, which you strive
to meet within those limited resources, and I recognize that it
is sometimes a challenge.
That said, I am going to make demands on you because that
is our job. And the district that I represent in New Jersey
contains portions of the Green Brook Sub Basin and the Rahway
River Basin. We have significant flooding challenges,
particularly the Rahway River; in recent years it has inundated
communities in suburban New Jersey that had not experienced
that kind of flooding in past years, and we know it will happen
again.
We have been working, as you know, with the Corps. Our
local elected officials have been working with you for years
now to try to come up with a plan to deal with this. We were
working fairly well with the New York district for some years
and responsibility for the Rahway River project was moved, as
you may know, to the New England district.
And whether it is fair or not, I have to say there has been
some frustration with that move, both the geographic distance,
greater geographic distance of the New England district, and
also a sense among some of our local elected officials that
proposals that they are sending up are being rejected, and not
just rejected, but without the sort of feedback and input that
would help us figure out a way forward.
So I think my first question is just I am hoping to better
understand why the management of the project was moved from New
York to New England, and then perhaps we can take it from
there.
General Spellmon. Sir, a great question. And this study has
been ongoing for some time. The team from New York district,
they outlined 17 alternatives; they have 17 alternatives to get
after this particular problem set in your district. And we were
having a lot of trouble just getting to agreement with the non-
Federal sponsor on options that would work that came back that
were economically feasible, meaning that they had a benefit-to-
cost ratio above 1.
So this happens from time to time when we are just not
seeing forward progress. We will move and to try to get another
set of eyes, another set of leaders on the problem. I am taking
notes on the frustrations that you have shared on New England
district and I will jump on that, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. We are--I mean, you should
expect another proposal from the local sponsors, from the
mayors council that has been working on this. And again, I am
not asking for any bending of the rules or special treatment
for us. I think we agree that this is something that needs to
be dealt with because the flooding will continue to happen.
I am asking for some personal attention from you and
obviously, if there is anything that my office can do to help
speed this along, to help if there is any communication
difficulty, we stand ready to help. It is a huge, huge priority
for me and for the people that I represent.
So thank you and let's stay in touch. If I can have your
commitment to do that, I will be very, very grateful.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Bost, you are next.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank you
for--over here--thank you for being here, and also, General,
thank you. You can pretty well guess what question I am going
to ask. As you know, I have spoken about it several times, and
that is the Len Small levee that is in my district.
Let me tell you what is happening right now so we get it on
the record. Dozens of landowners and homeowners can only reach
their home by boat, and some of them can't reach their home at
all because they can't get through the current at the level
that it is moving through.
Two State highways and a number of roads in the county are
submerged and some have significant damage. The current at the
breach site is so strong, we have had two occasions where it
has actually sucked barges traveling upstream into the breach.
Twice it has happened now, but also then the other day, just
this past weekend, the current ripped apart a tow and sent
several barges through the breach site.
I have a news article describing what happened, and, Madam
Chair, if I can, I would like to have unanimous consent to
enter this into the record.
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
[The information is on pages 120-122.]
Mr. Bost. I have been saying for awhile that the levee
breach is a hazard to navigation. The Len Small levee does not
qualify because the flood prevention benefits of the levee did
not produce a positive BCR. Now, we have worked with you and we
have worked with this committee and we have put things together
over the years. Now, I understand this has been going on not
just for this flood case but it has been going on since after
the holiday flood of 2015, and then from 2016, it is about four
or five times I have actually spoken in this committee and on
the floor showing maps of the danger of the navigational change
that may occur there.
Now, let me tell you, though, that the--you know this, that
the Corps has spent millions of dollars in riprap under its
navigation authority to attempt to stabilize the channel. Let
me also explain this: the riprap is gone. It got washed away,
because unless we make the investment and figure out a way to
fix it.
So the quick question that I have: now we can agree that
the navigation threat is no longer just a threat, it is real.
We have seen it happen. This is a problem and we have to fix
it.
Now, I am going to ask, Mr. Secretary, shouldn't the Corps
consider other economic benefits like commercial navigation
when conducting the BCR for non-Federal levee repair,
particularly when the levee structure serves multiple purposes,
as this one does?
Mr. James. In my opinion, yes, sir.
Mr. Bost. OK. I am looking forward to us working together
to try to cure and fix this problem. The constituents and the
people along the river are becoming--you know it better than
anybody. That is where you are from, right--you can look across
the river almost at it. And this is a situation where common
horse sense has flown out the window.
We are looking at--and this is for members of the committee
and to have on record. If we don't cure this problem and that
cut occurs all the way across, now all of a sudden because of
the change in the river level, over the 17 miles around that
bend, now all of a sudden it drops that same level in 3 miles
and the navigation stops. That will change the way we transport
our goods, whether it is for agriculture or anything else, when
we have to all of a sudden stop north of Cairo, transfer off of
the barge into trucks, take it south, and then move it that
way. This is not a good way to do business.
The American people can see it is an issue, but
unfortunately, whether it is Congress or working with the
Corps, we can't get this figured out. I am looking forward to
making sure we get it figured out and we get it fixed. And I
don't know what you would suggest or the general would suggest
that we can do, because this isn't going away. We have got to
get it fixed.
Mr. James. Congressman Bost, I would appreciate it, when
your schedule allows, that I could come see you----
Mr. Bost. I look forward to that.
Mr. James [continuing]. And we look into this a little
further. I mean, it has been approached so far like a normal
levee project, low BCR, blah, blah, blah. I am not sure we
shouldn't look at some of this other information.
Mr. Bost. It truly is a case where this is when people
watch what we do here in Congress. They think, you know what, I
am a simple businessperson and I can figure this out, or I am a
simple farmer and I can figure out how to cure a problem when
it develops, but yet we have had this problem since--and I am
not blaming you. I thank you for the offer. But I want the
people of this committee to know and understand, we have got to
start thinking properly and quit looking like the Congress that
can't get anything done on issues like this.
We have got to work together and see when a problem is
developing to this level so that we can actually focus and work
on it. And the people in my district--the farmers there, you
know, this isn't about their land anymore. Their land is gone.
It is under so much sand it doesn't matter. You are not going
to--you know, unless somebody wants to open up a sandpit down
there when we get the levee back in place, there is just not a
lot we can do there. But----
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [presiding]. Thank you, your time is
up.
Mr. Bost. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman
Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and my first question is to Mr.
James. First, thank you for coming to our committee and
describing to us the important work of the Army Corps across
the Nation. But I want to take this opportunity to mention two
projects in my district, which I think are moving along. I just
want to mention that, maybe also ask General Spellmon also
about that.
One is an ongoing study for navigation improvements at the
Port of Long Beach. I represent the Port of Long Beach. And
first I would like to say to Mr. James, it would be wonderful
to our port complex, the port complex of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, which is the largest container port complex in the
Western Hemisphere--40 percent of the goods of the Nation come
in and out of L.A.-Long Beach--if you would come and visit our
port complex.
The Army Corps and the L.A. district in particular have
been tremendous partners to our port complex, and especially
now I am talking about the Port of Long Beach, ensuring that
the port remains a key component or a key or a vital component
in the global supply chain.
What we are talking about are improvements that will enable
the safe navigation of these megaships which now have been
developed. And so, but we need really help in making sure the
navigation, that they can come in and out of our harbor. And
now, because of the size of the ships, they have to wait until
there are tide windows to safely operate. And so I just want to
alert you to that; that is moving through the process.
In addition I am also very proud to represent Orange
County, or parts of Orange County, which have experienced
substantial population growth in recent decades, and flood
control improvements along the Westminster watershed can help
to prevent billions of dollars of damage during significant
flood events and they are going to save my constituents
millions of dollars of flood insurance premiums. And so I am
hoping that we can have the Chief's Report signed for that
project so we can authorize the needed improvements in the WRDA
bill next year.
But my question is a little different that I want to ask
you. In the past two WRDA bills, Congress has included
provisions to encourage the use of natural infrastructure for
Army Corps projects, but these project alternatives often face
challenges because some of their benefits are difficult to
quantify. So the first question is can you tell me how the Army
Corps currently calculates the cost effectiveness of nature-
based infrastructure, and has the Corps been working to develop
better evaluation methods for natural infrastructure?
Mr. James. Congressman, if it is OK, I will let General
Spellmon take that.
Mr. Lowenthal. That is fine.
Mr. James. Because I am not cognizant of it.
Mr. Lowenthal. OK. General Spellmon, we are talking about
now----
General Spellmon. Sir, I had a great visit.
Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Looking towards natural kinds
of infrastructure.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. I had a great visit out to your
district in early January. In my previous assignment out in the
Northwest, I had the opportunity to implement some natural-
based infrastructure in some of our flood-control projects, and
I do look forward to the opportunity in doing that in other
parts of the Nation as well.
Sir, I would have to have our economists come in, and I
would be happy to do that, to come see you and walk you through
the math on how we calculate the cost effectiveness. With 1
minute and 8 seconds remaining, I would be challenged to do
that in a nutshell here this morning. But happy to come sit
down with you.
Mr. Lowenthal. But what I am saying, though, is that it is
sometimes difficult, not because of the Army Corps, to measure
some of these natural infrastructure cost-benefits, and I am
just hoping that the Corps is working on better ways or more
effective ways of measuring the impacts of natural
infrastructure.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lowenthal. And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman
Mast from the great State of Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairwoman.
General Spellmon, 9 of the last 11 years, in the name of
flood control, water has been discharged out of Lake Okeechobee
to Florida's east and west coasts. This isn't new news to
anybody.
My question is simple, pointed, but important. Has the Army
Corps of Engineers transferred toxic water--toxic water--from
Lake Okeechobee to the east through the C-44 Reservoir into the
St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon, and to the west
through the Caloosahatchee River?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We have conveyed water out of
the system that has contained cyanobacteria and harmful algae
blooms. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mast. And the Corps considers that toxic?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mast. Thank you. I appreciate that acknowledgment. It
is important so that we can move forward as we try to
accurately weigh the risks and assess what is going on as we
try to manage both flood control for those to the south of the
Herbert Hoover dike, and human health and human safety impacts
to those to the east and west of Florida's Lake Okeechobee, as
we are going summer after summer trying to work through these
long-term infrastructure projects that you have been working on
and your predecessors have been working on. So I appreciate
that acknowledgment.
I do want to submit for the record the considerations by
both the Centers for Disease Control, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the EPA, if you will take this by
unanimous----
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. No objection.
Mr. Mast. Thank you.
[The information is on pages 122-128.]
Mr. Mast. The CDC also notes that microcystins are a potent
liver toxin produced by some species of cyanobacteria. The
Florida Department of Environmental Protection says the mere
presence of cyanobacteria blooms warrants the State to issue a
warning. The EPA has reported cyanobacteria and their toxins
are considered a serious threat to human health, and on May 22,
the EPA declared that cyanotoxins above eight parts per billion
posed too great of a risk for human contact, and so I
appreciate you taking that for the record.
I would like to move to simply a thank you, General
Spellmon. I have in front of me a letter from you to the State
of Florida in which you outline, ``In order to reduce future
risk to the public, the Jacksonville district will lower Lake
Okeechobee levels as much as possible within the operational
band of the Lake Okeechobee regulations schedule prior to the
start of the hurricane season 2019.''
And I am giving you the most sincere--I hope you take this
as the most sincere thank you that can be given from each of my
constituents and from myself. You are making a real difference
in our community with this operational and managerial change.
For businesses, for people's health, for people's recreation,
you are making a difference. It is not going unnoticed and we
want to thank you for that.
And in that, I yield back.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman
Rouda for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, General
Spellmon and Secretary James, for joining us here today. Harley
Rouda from Orange County, California. My district is the 48th
Congressional District of California. It represents about 80
percent of the coastline of Orange County, and there are a
couple of key projects there. One of the key ones is the Santa
Ana River project, and the Santa Ana River project was once
characterized by the Army Corps of Engineers as, quote, ``the
worst flood threat west of the Mississippi.''
This river is located entirely in southern California, the
largest river in the area, and it meets the Pacific Ocean
between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.
With sea levels projected to continue rising and the
increasing intensity of storms and natural disasters, the
planned lower river channel modification for flood control
along the 30 miles of the Santa Ana River from Prado Dam to the
Pacific Ocean is of critical importance to our constituents.
We have, as I mentioned, two major projects that we are
interested in, the Santa Ana River mainstream project and the
Westminster and East Garden Grove project, which rely on
section 1043 authorization. It is estimated that these projects
would prevent $40 billion in damages, protect over 100,000
acres from flooding, and benefit over 3.5 million people within
Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties during a design
storm event.
General Spellmon and Mr. Secretary, would you both agree
that the Santa Ana mainstream project and the Westminster and
East Garden Grove projects are critical to maintaining flood
safety in Orange County?
Mr. James. Taking from what you say, sir, yes. I haven't
actually visited that area yet. It is on the list, just haven't
been there yet. But I think General Spellmon may have been
there.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Sir, I visited both of these
projects from top to bottom and I agree, they are very
important floor risk management projects.
Mr. Rouda. And can you help? Can we kind of go back to a
little bit of your testimony a little bit earlier, Secretary?
It was about--and, General, please jump in as well. I am just
trying to get a better handle of the authorizations--the
projects have been authorized--and how well funded, what the
gap is between funding and the projects. Because I believe I
read somewhere that based on the President's budget, we are
looking at a 100-year timeframe to address the currently
authorized projects. Of course that doesn't include any new
projects coming on board over that 100 years. So can you give
us a little bit more information as to what the delta, what the
plug is between what has been authorized and what is actually
needed to meet our infrastructure needs in these areas?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So the 100-year timeline that
you have read about, it looks at the--roughly the $98 billion
backlog of projects where we have a Chief's Report on the table
but the project has not received funding yet. So that is how we
have defined the backlog.
With the generous appropriations from Congress of recent
years, $6.9, $6.8, almost $7 billion, about $1 billion of that
is dedicated to actual construction. So that is the math. One
billion dollars a year in construction against a $100 billion
backlog.
Mr. Rouda. OK, thank you. And help me understand, too, when
you do the analytics on any of these projects, are you taking
into account the impact of climate change and the need for
addressing it both in terms of today as well as terms and
forecast for future years?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, we do. So the recommendations
that we take first to General Semonite and then to Secretary
James look at a variety of criteria. As I mentioned earlier,
life and public safety always--those projects generally rise to
the top of our recommendation. Then we have across the country
a number of legal mandates and requirements by court order that
we have to fulfill. We have to pursue those projects. Some
projects have a national security component to them. Generally
you see a very high priority. And then we get into things like
BCRs, economic and environmental returns.
And then finally, sir, I would just say what is always high
on our list, we want to finish what we start. If Congress has
appropriated dollars to begin a project, we want to see it
through to completion.
Mr. Rouda. And one last question. Does that mean you
believe climate change is real and impacting our infrastructure
needs? And that question is to both of you.
Mr. James. I am a civil engineer, I am not a scientist and
I am not a weather forecaster. But I will tell you that we are
making every effort, as far as I am concerned and as far as I
know, to build sustainable infrastructure. Now, that means
looking at--today, Mr. Graves over there, Garret Graves,
mentioned that himself that we can't look back to the 1930s,
and we are not doing that. And the technology is so much better
today. We are working with NOAA to try to get rain forecasts
accurate up to 24 hours, within 24 hours. We are not there yet,
but we are working on that, things like that.
Now, that is my perspective on your question.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, briefly. So with regard to
climate, I always encourage people to read the National Climate
Assessment. You don't have to read the whole thing, but there
are portions in there that talk about some of the significant
changes in precipitation patterns that we are seeing,
particularly in the Midwest, the quantity of events and the
volume of rainfall that is falling.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouda.
Mr. LaMalfa, you are next.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the panel
being here today. I just wanted to point out a couple issues in
my area as well as my colleague in the adjacent district here
on Yuba River, Feather River. My understanding is General
Semonite has finalized the Chief's Report on the Lower Yuba
River ecosystem restoration project there, so we are looking
forward to that, working with the Yuba County Water Agency.
They do a lot of great work, and so looking forward to the
completion of this study on getting that ecosystem restoration
going, which will be helpful for a lot of good reasons.
So, moving on to the Sutter Basin Feather River west levee
project, again, these issues start to--they run through both
districts, myself and Mr. Garamendi, as these projects go along
and we want to see the completion of that on the south half.
And so we are glad that, Secretary James, you have been a
great supporter of this project--appreciate that a lot--and as
well as working with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency,
which has really been emblematic of what a local agency, when
allowed to take over a project that the Corps has overseen--we
have gotten some great results and, indeed, moved up the
timeline on the completion of that in Butte and Sutter
Counties. What could have been 2024, it has saved $300 million
and could have been done as soon as 2017 to 2019, and we should
see that project completed in 2020. So that will be great for
the flood control and the public safety of that area.
So we will still be ahead of time and much, much under
budget. So I hope this can be an example we can work on and use
in many more projects around the country.
What lessons, Secretary James, do you think we have learned
from Sutter Butte and the section 1043 agreements the Army
Corps has made on this? And then what do you think as far as
cost savings and timelines going forward on--like we have done
on this on future projects? What do you see as--how big of a
thing is this for your administration on that?
Mr. James. Well, my thinking on it is that we can save time
and we can save money if the project sponsor can afford it.
That is not every area in this country that can, but the ones
that can and have the expertise. There are areas in this
country that need flood control, for example, that there is not
a bulldozer or a track hoe operator and equipment in their
area, even if they had money.
So that is what I say. The availability of these
authorizations, like 1043, are going to be very helpful in a
lot of areas of this country, but they won't fit everybody.
Mr. LaMalfa. In a hearing we had here about a year, maybe
1\1/2\ years ago, it was something that some of you, you and
your colleagues, had brought up as a model to have a lot more
of that under this administration. And so are you seeing that
that actually is playing out as a model for other areas? Is
that being put in place in any widespread----
Mr. James. You mean Sutter or do we have----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, Sutter, we are almost there, right?
Mr. James. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. But in other examples around the country was
what the administration was----
Mr. James. We have only had two, the McCook Reservoir in
Chicago and Harris County in Texas. Both sponsors of those
projects have engaged 1043 and seem to be very happy with what
is happening with them.
Mr. LaMalfa. Good.
Mr. James. I have heard no complaints about it.
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you believe, either one of you, that the
Corps would have any issue with exempting certain States from
NEPA when they have their own already high environmental
standards, such as in California, CEQA, which a lot of times,
you know, outdoes what NEPA requirements are?
Mr. James. Congressman, you just threw me a curve ball. I
hadn't thought about that.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
Mr. James. But I would be happy to talk to you about that.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We have seen other examples in different
agencies, different issues, where they would be willing to let,
you know, another transportation project since CEQA is at least
equal or even more restrictive, more----
Mr. James. Well, most of what----
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Than NEPA. So----
Mr. James. Most of what the Corps does, as I understand it,
is regulated and driven by the law that the Congress passes.
And even if the Corps sat here and told you they would be happy
to give up NEPA in X State and----
Mr. LaMalfa. And provide for more one-stop shopping, you
know, where you have two different entities, right.
Mr. James. Yes, but that may not be their decision to make.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
Mr. James. The Congress may have already made that decision
for them is what I am saying.
Mr. LaMalfa. But the Corps would be willing to go along
with that conversation, you believe, you know? I guess we can
send you more laws, but----
Mr. James. I would be. I would be.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes?
Mr. James. Yes, I would be.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Because it is all about improving the
delivery of projects in cost and time, and no need for
duplicate effort. Yes. OK.
Mr. James. It is worth exploring. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir. All right. I know my time is already
up. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. Stanton. Chairwoman?
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Stanton, you are next.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
this hearing. Thank you to the outstanding witnesses. I am a
former mayor of Phoenix and I have seen the great work that the
Corps of Engineers has done in my city over many years. I
recently introduced legislation to create an environmental
assistance program modeled after other Western States in
partnership with the Corps of Engineers.
Can either of the witnesses--can you describe the benefits
of a Corps environmental infrastructure assistance program,
especially the benefits of improving existing water and
wastewater infrastructure projects, before performance and
reliability are compromised? Please, Major General.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. I mean, I think this year we
are seeing that firsthand with the damages to the levees I
mentioned just south of Omaha in between Kansas City. Just to
do the initial repairs, not to restore the levee, but just to
do the initial repairs, these are $7, $8, $9 million projects
just to stop the water from flowing into the farmland.
Mr. Stanton. There are several projects the Corps is
involved in along the Salt and Gila River corridors through
Phoenix. Two of our late great representatives of Arizona,
Senator McCain and Congressman Pastor, were both champions of
restoration and development of the Salt River through Phoenix
and the entire Valley of the Sun. We now call that project,
that legacy project, Rio Reimagined. It pulls together multiple
local governments, Tribal authorities, Arizona State
University, the Corps and others to revitalize over 50 miles of
important river corridor through the Phoenix region.
Currently, the Corps has only one Civil Works project
manager assigned to the Phoenix office of the L.A. district,
which represents all of Arizona. In my opinion, that is clearly
not enough. How does the Corps plan to address staffing needs
so that all Corps projects in the State can move forward in a
timely and appropriate manner with appropriate staffing levels?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We will go back and look at
this particular project office. As a general statement, we put
people where the work is. On this particular set of projects,
my understanding is that the current suite of projects were
upland restoration, not necessarily down on the river where we
can apply our aquatic ecosystem restoration authorities. I also
understand that we would have to do an additional study of what
other AER-type projects would be out there. But, sir, the
workforce would follow the workload.
Mr. Stanton. Tres Rios is in a Corps project associated
with Rio Reimagined. It is a project that is partially complete
but we need the Corps to complete a limited reevaluation
report, LRR, to raise the section 902 limit and request
additional appropriations to fund it. What is the status of
this report and when does the Corps expect it to be completed?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So we require a New Start
decision, a New Start authority, from Congress before we can
initiate that general reevaluation report.
Mr. Stanton. Another important project in Arizona is the
completion of the Lower Santa Cruz flood control project in
Pinal County, the fastest growing county in the United States.
Traditional farming communities like Maricopa, which was
incorporated in 2003 with a population of approximately 1,000
residents, is now over 50,000 residents. This growing city sits
in the middle of a flood plain. Currently, the draft Chief's
Report is slated to be completed in July 2020 and finalized in
2021. In order to keep this project on an optimal schedule, our
aim is to get this project authorized in the 2020 WRDA. Can the
Corps accelerate the Chief's Report to coincide with the WRDA
2020 in order to keep the project on schedule?
General Spellmon. Sir, we want to expedite this study and
all the remaining studies to make them eligible for WRDA 2020.
This particular project, we have some additional consultation
we need to do with some Tribal members in the area, and then we
will work to expedite the completion of this study.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that. It is not my district but
it is important to the State of Arizona, and so it is important
to my district as well.
Let me turn to the Rio de Flag flood control project in
Flagstaff. Also not my district but important to the State of
Arizona. Lieutenant General Semonite visited Flagstaff and
toured the project in October. After his visit, he stated that
its completion would be one of his top priorities before the
end of his term as Chief. It is my understanding that the Los
Angeles district has requested the remaining $52 million needed
to complete this project.
A catastrophic flood will affect more than half of
Flagstaff's 75,000 residents, including major parts of its
downtown and Northern Arizona University, and could cause $1
billion or more in damages. Completion of this project is a top
priority for the city. Will you support the district's funding
request to complete this important project in the fiscal year
2020 workplan?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So this will go forward with
our recommendation. We will finish PED. We have the dollars to
finish PED this year, and as you had the commitment from
General Semonite, we want to finish projects that we start.
Mr. Stanton. I really appreciate that. I am just about out
of time, so I will yield back but I have another question about
Rio Salado Oeste, another very important project to Phoenix. I
will submit it in writing for the record. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Palmer, you are next.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary James, at
a hearing in the Oversight Committee last year, I requested a
list of outstanding feasibility studies by the Corps, and after
waiting nearly 9 months I received a list of 97 studies. And
the thing that concerns me about this is that 36 of those
studies are over 5 years long and still ongoing, as far as I
can tell; 22 are over 10 years long; 15 are over 16 years long;
and 4 of them are 20 years older. And there are others that for
some reason--Morganza down in Louisiana has been being studied
since 1992 and apparently spent about $75 million on it.
There are a couple of other studies, questions that I
raised in that hearing last year--West Shore, which has been
studied over 40 years, it is not on the list because it is now
under construction; and the Comite River, there was--since 1983
they have been studying and building a diversion canal from the
Comite River over to the Lilly Bayou for flood mitigation in
the event of a 100-year, 500-year flood, and it is now under
construction, but only after they had a catastrophic flood
event.
Under WRRDA 2014, in an attempt to reduce the time and cost
of these studies, there were limits put on the Corps of 3 years
and $3 million. These 5-year and older studies, 36 of them, run
over $140 million. Are you aware of that?
Mr. James. I wasn't aware of the number or the amount of
money. I am aware of the fact that the Corps--that they are
introducing studies as 3 x 3 x 3, are coming to me for waivers
more often than I feel we should be doing that. If it is a 3 x
3 x 3, good. If it is not, don't call it that upfront.
Mr. Palmer. Well, the law requires that it is 3 years and
$3 million.
Mr. James. Sorry?
Mr. Palmer. The WRRDA that was passed in 2014 requires 3
years, $3 million. Now, you, in response to a question--and by
the way, Madam Chairman, 17 of these long-term studies are in
California and 23 of them are in New York and New Jersey, 8 of
which are related to Sandy.
But you responded earlier to a gentleman who asked you a
question and you said that you are a civil engineer. I worked
for two international engineering companies prior to running a
think-tank, and you and I both know that if we run an
engineering company and we went out for a bid on a project and
had these kind of results in terms of coming up with a design
for a plant or a water system for that matter, we would be out
of business.
Would you like to respond to that as an engineer?
Mr. James. I didn't say I like it.
Mr. Palmer. But I want to know what you are going to do
about it.
Mr. James. That is what I work at every day, sir. That is
what takes up my time. That is what keeps me up at night. I
came here with the understanding and desire to help the Corps
change themselves through their processes. If they get the
money, they get it done. And I am still working on that. As
long as I stay here, I will continue to work on that.
Mr. Palmer. Do not take this as an attack against you, sir.
I appreciate what you are trying to do and I appreciate the
fact that you are an engineer, because I know you are very
linear in your thinking and very analytical. But we are facing
some serious situations around the country right now. We heard
Representative Bost talk about this. We have heard the
chairwoman talk about it. And I think some of the issues that
we are dealing with, it is because the Corps is still studying
the problem and not doing the project, and that is what
happened in Louisiana.
It is going to happen in some other places if the Corps
keeps studying and doesn't start building. And I am not
attacking the Corps either. I am just saying there are issues
out there that we need to address, and instead of someone
making a career out of a project study, it might be better if
we start turning some dirt.
Mr. James. Well, I can read you my opening statement and
just exactly what you said is in it, and that is how I feel
about this. I came here--I didn't come here for any other
reason.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. James. But this is what I am trying to do, sir. And I
will offer this: any ideas or even invite me over to your
office just to discuss this, I will be happy to.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I would be happy to go over the list of
projects with you and I think the Members from California and
some of these other places that are in harm's way might have
some interesting----
Mr. James. I would be more interested in your thoughts
about the solution rather than seeing the list that hasn't been
done right. I would be happy to discuss that.
Mr. Palmer. I would be happy to meet with you about it.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Espaillat, you are recognized.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the
witnesses for their testimony. This is an important opportunity
to talk about the need to invest in water infrastructure,
particularly habitat restoration and disaster resiliency. I
represent half of Manhattan, surrounded by water, the Hudson
River and the Harlem River, and I want to take a few moments to
draw your attention to some sites that are incredibly important
not only to my district but I would say New York City as a
whole as well as the greater metropolitan area.
Over the past decades, various work has been done under
numerous programs to help clean up the Hudson River, restore
habitat and improve public access to it. The Hudson River now
has become a playground for sports, recreation, families and
tourists as well.
In an urban area as dense as New York City, it is
critically important that residents have opportunities to
interact with their natural surroundings. Over the past
decades, the Army Corps of Engineers has been conducting
various studies within the harbor and the broader Hudson-
Raritan Estuary. Many of these include ecosystem restoration
and fish life buildup as well as resiliency.
The Corps is finishing up its recommendations, which would
include nearly two dozen projects throughout the region, and I
understand the Corps plans to include these projects in the
next Chief's Report. It is my hope that we are able to get this
project authorized in the next Water Resources Development Act.
Furthermore, I want to highlight the importance of the
ongoing New York City-New Jersey Harbor and coastal storm risk
management facilities study. Aside from protecting the overall
area and harbor from storm surge, the study also looks at
smaller projects to protect individual communities that will be
impacted by storm surge.
During Superstorm Sandy, East Harlem was the most
significantly impacted portion of my district, experiencing
severe flooding. The bulkhead that protects this neighborhood
from further flooding is severely damaged and needs to be
immediately repaired. Furthermore, current city comptroller and
former Manhattan Borough president Scott Stringer put together
an ambitious proposal to extend the life of the Harlem River
shoreline through a number of structural changes and ecosystem
development which will enhance resiliency.
I want to also raise two other marsh restoration projects
in my district, one of which also includes the initial Hudson-
Raritan Estuary studies. The first is the Inwood Marsh, which
is just two blocks away from where I live, located in the
northern tip of Manhattan; and the other one is Swindler Cove,
just off the Harlem River in northern Manhattan. I believe it
is within the Corps' ability to do this under your continuing
authorities, and we want you to recommend them for immediate
action.
I would like to ask if you can look into these projects
under your continuing authorities programs, as I believe they
will make for restoration of considerable green spaces and
waterfront access in a part of my district that could use all
the green space it can get.
I want to ask, Mr. James or Mr. Spellmon, can you look into
these items as part of your coastal storm risk management
studies, the first ones that I mentioned, regarding East Harlem
and both the New York and New Jersey initiative? Is there
anything that you are doing now that you could look at
regarding making our waterfront in Manhattan stronger and more
resilient in preparation for the next storm?
And the second question, of course, is can you work on
these two smaller projects in the northern tip of Manhattan?
Mr. James. No, sir, the answer to both of those are yes. I
don't know what kind of engagement there has been with the
district on any of those three projects, but regardless if
there has been engagement or not, I think General Spellmon can
take care of making engagement. He may know if there has been.
Mr. Espaillat. Well, I look forward to working with you,
General Spellmon, and these are very important projects for the
northern tip of Manhattan, East Harlem, New York City and the
tristate area.
Thank you so much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
I now recognize Mr. Westerman to introduce the next Members
for questions.
Mr. Westerman [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this
time I would like to recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity, Madam
Chairman, for this hearing, and I want to thank our two
witnesses for being here. Before I forget, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to insert in the record a validation study
for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, dated June 2019, and a
beach renourishment evaluation report for Carolina Beach, North
Carolina, dated June 2019. If no objection, I would like to
insert these for the record.
Mr. Westerman. Without objection.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, without objection.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary--I am sorry?
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The information is on pages 128-129.]
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary and General Spellmon,
Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, real briefly, both have
really, really good cost-benefit ratios. We need to have the
Carolina Beach project included in the Chief's Report for WRDA
2020. From our standpoint, it looks like that is on time and
looking good. From your standpoint, I am curious what you
think.
General Spellmon. Sir, as you know, both those draft
reports are out for public review. We will collect up those
comments by the end of this month and then we will wrap up
those reports and have them submitted to the administration.
Mr. Rouzer. And then, of course, Wrightsville Beach needs
to be included in the Director's Report for WRDA 2020, just to
keep everything on par, on time. I think you were including
that particular project in your previous answer, but just want
to confirm.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. Rouzer. North Topsail, Surf City--Secretary James, you
and I spoke about this some time ago. We had a great
conversation, and I know you all were looking at including it
in the workplan last time around. It didn't make it for
whatever reason, but I want to stress this is a critical New
Start included, authorized by Congress, and quite frankly had
that been in place prior to Hurricane Florence, we wouldn't
have had near the amount of damage there at North Topsail Beach
that we had as a result of Florence coming through. So I just
want to highlight that. Any comment either one of you might
have on that particular project?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So this is certainly also
eligible for the FY19 supplemental funds. We owe the Secretary
our recommendations on both projects and investigations by the
end of this--by the end of this month, and we are going through
that process now.
Mr. Rouzer. I thank you. And then the last item I want to
touch on--and I will be very candid with you, I am quite
frustrated. In fact, frustrated may not be the word. I have
been right mad. In fact, it has almost led a Southern Baptist
to cuss. And that is the Southport no-wake zone, which was
authorized in 2016. It has taken 3 years, still no answer, and
my inclination, my instinct is the Corps doesn't want to do it.
This is not a divisive issue back home. It is unanimous--
the sheriff's department, the county commissioners, the town of
Southport, everybody. In fact, last week when I was back home
for July the 4th, you know, folks want to talk politics, and
the number one item that was brought up to me was what in the
world is going on with our proposed wake zone here at
Southport?
How do I answer that? Where are we?
Mr. James. Tell them the letter is on my desk, to you.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, is that a good letter or a bad letter?
Mr. James. I think you will quit cussing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rouzer. Well, I can tell you what, if it is a bad
letter you are going to hear about it. This has been a very,
very frustrating thing, and I have said this to you privately
and I will say it publicly. Where is the common sense and where
is the common courtesy? This should not be complicated. It
should not be complicated. I don't usually get riled up about
stuff. I am a pretty even-tempered fellow. But like I said,
this one has pushed me to the limits because it is just
nonsensible. It needs to get done. We want this. As my
colleague, Mr. Graves, said earlier in the hearing, we need you
to work to get to a yes, not work to get to a no.
Mr. James. Unfortunately, it was not on my desk for 3
years, sir. It has been on my desk a very short period of time
and it will be coming to you with a yes right away.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, sir. That is all I need to know.
I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back and the Chair now
recognizes Mrs. Fletcher for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I would like to thank Ranking
Member Westerman and Chairwoman Napolitano for holding this
important hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for taking
the time to testify this morning.
The Army Corps of Engineers has one of the most critically
important jobs in the country. Nowhere is that more true than
in my district, in Texas' Seventh Congressional District, where
the Army Corps' investment in the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs
back in the 1940s has been one of the most critical pieces to
the development of the city of Houston and to our protection
when it comes to flooding and protecting our infrastructure.
So we certainly appreciate the work that the Galveston
district has done in particular, and we know that while the
Corps often suffers from inadequate budgets when compared to
the number of authorized projects, it also seems to us that the
process can be slow-moving even when fully supported by
Congress. And so I want to talk a little bit about that and the
concerns that my constituents have for some of the projects.
Secretary James, I understand you have placed a focus on
pushing the Corps to operate more efficiently and, as I have
heard you say, to move dirt faster. That is certainly something
that we are interested in seeing. And I know that the Houston
Ship Channel is expecting a Chief's Report soon.
Given the tremendous economic boom that we have seen in the
Houston economy and the petrochemical industry as well as the
increasing size of the ships coming through our port, will you
agree with me that this is one project where we need to get
moving dirt as soon as possible?
Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. I have been to the area. I have seen
the industry, the commerce there, the need for more
infrastructure, better infrastructure, and I do agree with you
100 percent.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. How can we move faster than the
usual route that could take that project to 2030 or beyond? How
can we start by dredging by 2021?
Mr. James. Let General Spellmon talk to that. I think he
might be more up to date on the schedule. And then I will
address anything after that.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
General Spellmon. Congress is helping, as is the
administration, in helping us move projects from start to
finish much more rapidly, and I will say that by we are funding
projects to completion. So the example I like to use here is
the Herbert Hoover dike in Florida. With incremental funding,
it took us 13\1/2\ years to get that project to the halfway
point. This is a cutoff wall for about 54 miles of dike--13\1/
2\ years to get to the halfway point. Congress and the
administration made the decision to fully fund the remainder of
that project. It is only going to take us 3 years to get the
last 50 percent. So that is one way that Congress and the
administration is helping us complete projects faster, and you
can apply that same dynamic to projects like the Houston Ship
Channel.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And can you tell me--I believe
the Chief's Report is expected. What can you commit to doing to
ensure that the Chief's Report is done on time?
General Spellmon. So on this particular study, ma'am, I
understand it is a non-Federal sponsor now that wants to take a
pause on this particular Chief's Report as they want to pursue
a locally preferred plan to look at two-way traffic for the
entirety of the ship channel. I am sorry, I don't have those
dates in front of me, but I can certainly follow up with you on
the details I have from General Owen.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, I would appreciate that. That
issue is of great concern to our constituents and to folks
throughout the entire Houston region. And I think the other
thing that is a challenge, and I hear it from my constituents
at townhall meetings and other things: we do have several fully
authorized and funded projects ready to go, but obviously
engineering is involved and we want to make the best possible
decisions and we want to be thorough in the analysis. And I am
grateful to the Galveston district in particular. I spent time
just last week with Colonel Vail and several members of the
staff and am very impressed with the work they are doing.
But what can we do to move projects faster when there is a
clear benefit? In addition to fully funding, what else can we
do to just get these projects moving faster?
Mr. James. I would say the first thing you do is stay fully
engaged with whatever district that you are dealing with,
because sometimes that engagement slips. We are all busy. Most
of the people that you are talking about being sponsors are
businessmen; they have plenty to do anyway. But staying engaged
is one thing.
The other thing is if there is rights of way or relocations
of railroads or lines or whatever, that is important, is that
the sponsors engage those other entities that can really,
really hold up projects. I mean, that can be a big holdup.
And then other than that, go and engage the appropriators
and get the money. That is my guess.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. And I see I have gone over my time. I
appreciate it. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The gentlelady yields back and the Chair now
recognizes Representative Babin for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that
very much.
Thank you, both of you witnesses, for being here. And also,
thank you, Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman, for
convening this very important hearing on our Nation's water
resources.
I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses
again for being here. And I would be remiss if I did not thank
you again for your leadership during and after Hurricane Harvey
to ensure my constituents in Texas' 36th Congressional District
and the great people in the Greater Houston and coastal Texas
region are adequately protected from catastrophic natural
disasters. Unfortunately, the North American rainfall record is
in my district.
My congressional district is home to three highly important
Civil Works projects of great economic benefit to our Nation--a
project to deepen and widen the Houston Ship Channel currently
undergoing a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; also a
federally funded project to deepen and widen the Cedar Bayou
Navigation Channel; and a federally funded project to deepen
and widen the Sabine-Neches Waterway, all of these in my
district.
I would like to talk to you, ask you Secretary James,
first: In regards to the Houston Ship Channel, the draft
National Economic Development, or NED plan, recommends
improvements and widening for only a portion of the Houston
Ship Channel through Galveston Bay, Redfish Island, if you are
familiar with it.
Houston pilots and private industry have indicated that a
partial widening, as proposed, will create a bottleneck that
compromises safety and efficiency throughout the entire system.
What can Congress do--more importantly, what can I do--to help
you ensure the Chief's Report reflects the necessary options
and opportunities to address, safely, the deepening and
widening of the entire Houston Ship Channel, not just part of
it, including the long-term maintenance of the locally
preferred plan?
Mr. James. Sir, I have visited with the local people that
are engaging in trying to get that done in Houston. Frankly, I
agree with them. It does not make much sense to me to dredge
and widen half of a channel and leave the other half not.
And furthermore, it does not make sense to me that if we
are only going to dredge half of it, why we are dredging the
outer half rather than from the port out.
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. James. I would be happy to talk to you about this
further. I have got thoughts about it. And your people have
visited me more than once, and I would really like for us to
sit down and talk about this. I do not think the Corps has any
anti-ship channel thoughts whatsoever. I think it is just the
way their economics worked out. But I think it ought to be
looked at.
Dr. Babin. OK. Well, I am very, very happy to hear you say
that because we really do need to have a dialogue because it
just does not make a bit of sense.
Mr. James. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Well, if you will let us
know.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. And then would it also be beneficial
for the Corps to use economics updated from 2016 and 2017 to
reflect the Federal interest in long-term maintenance? Don't
you agree with that?
Mr. James. Yes, sir. I certainly do. I do, as fast as
things are changing, particularly down there. I do.
Dr. Babin. Thank you. And then General Spellmon, section
902 is a policy that limits the construction cost to 120
percent of the congressionally authorized total project cost.
However, there have been several examples since award of 2007,
where Civil Works projects that were federally funded and under
construction either busted the 902 limit or were so close to
the limit that construction was expected to stop unless
Congress authorized an increase to the total project cost.
A great example is the Savannah Harbor deepening project,
which required an increase in its total project in award of
2018. It is my understanding that the Post-Authorization Change
Report basically, on an economic update, took only 3 months to
complete under a process that normally takes 12 to 14 months.
And as we see more and more port and waterway deepening and
widening projects being federally funded for construction,
would you commit to expediting any future post-authorization
economic updates to 3 months to avoid any delays in their
completion, sir?
General Spellmon. Sir, every Post-Authorization Change
Report is different. You have my commitment that we will
expedite all of these as it becomes necessary.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you so much.
And then Mr. Secretary, would you commit to expediting
these reviews as well?
Mr. James. Yes, sir. I am trying.
Dr. Babin. All right. Well, I will yield back. That is a
good affirmative answer there. Thank you so much.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
recognizes Representative Carbajal for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Secretary James and General Spellmon, thank you for being
here today as we hold our first hearing on the implementation
of the Water Resources Development Act, also known as WRDA.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank you and the
Los Angeles district for the incredible work and support the
Army Corps provided to reopening the 101 Highway following the
tragic Montecito debris flow in my district. Thank you for the
great work that you did.
As we move forward in developing the next WRDA legislation,
I want to raise concern on how the benefit-cost ratio is
calculated, also known as BCR. This was an issue also that was
raised by my colleague, Representative Lowenthal, previously.
I have heard from stakeholders in my district about their
frustration on how funding gets allocated. As you are probably
aware, construction of the Lower Mission Creek project has been
authorized since the year 2000 and was later amended in 2007 to
reflect the cost share between the Federal and non-Federal
partners.
Despite the project being shovel-ready and our local
government having invested over $18 million in non-Federal
resources, Federal resources have not been made available for
this project. Currently, the BCR score does not account for the
environmental benefits.
In your experience, what are some of the recommendations we
can look to to move a project like this forward? And two, what
are the benefits for accounting for environmental impacts in a
BCR score?
Mr. James. Sir, I would like to visit with you personally
offline to discuss BCR, if that would suit you. Generally I do
not think BCRs are being addressed properly, either. There are
benefits out there that we are not capturing, particularly in
less fortunate areas. We are not capturing those benefits to be
able to offset the cost of doing projects, and therefore, you
wind up like this, with a low BCR.
Now, I'm not talking about drumming up benefits or anything
like that. I am talking about taking a real look at what we
call benefits and how we rack those benefits against the cost-
benefit ratio. But I would love to visit with you more.
Mr. Carbajal. Great. Well, I hope to someday get a letter
like the one that is on your desk that is going to my
colleague, Representative Rouzer, as was mentioned earlier,
because this is a project that has been overstudied for over 30
years. Stakeholders are all on board. There is no dissent on
this project. And what is at stake here is real, real flooding
that could take life and property and pretty much with a huge
amount of risk.
So I look forward to talking to you offline. And again, I
look forward to really making some progress on this important
issue. So thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
recognizes Representative Mitchell for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the
committee allowing me to participate today.
Gentlemen, as you both know, I am from Michigan, the Great
Lakes State. I am going to try and transport you to the Great
Lakes. This time of year it is a great place to be and there is
no ice, so good news. We only have 5 minutes so I want to
pursue a couple of questions and hopefully get some brief
answers and you can talk offline if needed.
Finally, the Soo locks are underway, the progress on that,
after being authorized 31 years ago. I suggest to my colleague
down the way that sometimes patience is a virtue. Hang in
there.
It has been approved by the Army Corps after 31 years. It
is underway in terms of the initial construction. As you all
know, it is a vital link to commerce, and there were some
national security concerns because of moving taconite and
things through the Soo locks.
I get regular updates from the Detroit district, which I
really appreciate. It is very helpful. Can you both update me
what the next steps are and if we are on track in terms of the
progress for having that become operational? Can you give us an
update on that, please?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. A general statement: We are on
track. So just a few updates.
The design of the upstream channel, sir, that is in
progress. And we will award that construction contract before
the end of this fiscal year.
The designs of the upstream approach walls and the new lock
chamber, those are also in progress. We will award the upstream
approach wall construction contract next fiscal year, and we
have asked for $75.3 million in the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2020 to advance those efforts. But we are where
we need to be, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. And be assured, I have had conversations with
the White House and the administration about ensuring that that
funding is part of their request. And we see the assurances, in
fact, that it will continue to be on the top of their list to
continue that construction. So if you hear anything otherwise,
let me know so I can go--not curse, but maybe express my--so I
think we are in good shape on that.
Is there anything else here in Congress you need from us to
support that other than ensuring that appropriation continues
at the levels you need to move forward?
General Spellmon. No, sir. We are getting all the support
that we need from a technical perspective to advance the
construction in the right sequence.
Mr. Mitchell. What is the target date in your mind for the
additional lock to become operational?
General Spellmon. Sir, I would like to follow up with you
after that, after here.
Mr. Mitchell. I suppose. OK. I am happy to schedule that if
you can.
Let's move ourselves off to the world of Asian carp and the
Brandon Road lock project, which is a critical issue for the
Great Lakes region, for the basin. As you all know, that is the
last stopping point for the spread of Asian carp into the Great
Lakes Basin and the damage to the ecosystem that would do.
Your feasibility study was completed. Can you highlight
some of the findings that were in the Chief's Report and where
we plan on moving forward?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So General Semonite did sign
the Chief's Report, as you know, and that is now with the
Secretary for the administration's review. Sir, we understand
the concerns that we are hearing from the field on the cost.
And there are really two drivers for that.
First, we have a high contingency--because we are dealing
with some new technology on these fish barriers. And we are
confident that we could drive that contingency down as we get
into preliminary engineering and design. That was the first
driver.
The second driver was the addition of the concrete channel
from the previous report. And we believe that concrete channel
is important for this particular project because that is what
is going to provide the best efficacy for these new
technologies on this particular barrier.
Mr. Mitchell. I have heard some concerns about the non-
Federal partner and, frankly, their ability to participate as
we need them in this. Where I suggested it is being pursued, so
you know, is whether or not we look at a non-Federal partner to
be the Great Lakes compact to look at approaching it in that
manner because there has been some concern whether or not the
State of Illinois will support the effort.
Do you guys have any opinion on that?
Mr. James. I don't think I will give you an opinion on what
you should do, sir. I can tell you that since before this even
started in earnest, the State of Illinois, which almost has to
be the sponsor because it is in that State, et cetera, et
cetera, has I will not say waffled, but they really cannot make
up their mind whether they want to engage as the sponsor or
not.
For the term that they decided to engage as the sponsor, it
looked pretty simple to me to have a meeting and all the States
agree to how much they were going to kick in on it and all
that. But I hear there is trouble again.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, we are engaging on that issue, just so
you know, because it is critically important.
If we could, one comment. I would like to schedule offline,
because there is not enough time here to talk about fairly
historic Great Lakes levels, the impact this is having in terms
of flooding and some of the flood maps that you folks are
talking about versus--so that is a longer conversation than 5
minutes will enable us.
But if we could schedule in my office, I would like to
follow up on that because obviously we are seeing some historic
flooding in the Great Lakes Basin.
Mr. James. I think you have got a commitment from both of
us to do that. But I don't know why--I think there are 32 or so
on this committee. Over half would need to sit down and talk
about the same thing, flooding.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mitchell. Well, it at least it applies so at least you
have a full-time gig right now. So I appreciate your time and
your collective commitment to serve. Thank you very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back. And I would like
to personally thank the chairwoman for trusting me with
meaningful work during the committee, and I yield back to the
chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. The Chair recognizes herself,
and I would like to recognize Ms. E.B. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. And let me
express my appreciation to both of you for holding this
hearing. And thanks to the witnesses for being present.
On this past Monday, I held a bipartisan regional
roundtable discussion in my district to tackle the critical
issue of flooding, flood prevention and flood control. We had
Federal, State, regional, and local stakeholders who
participated in a rather lively discussion.
And during the roundtable, it was explained how $100
billion in flood damage was prevented by spending $2 to $3
billion annually on a flood control system. And it was clear
that issues of flooding, flood prevention, and flood control
must be addressed regionally using cross-functional teams with
stakeholders at all levels of Government and working together.
So my question--and let me precede that by saying that we
have had great cooperation with the Corps in that area. I am
from Dallas, Texas, not the coastal area of Houston. But how
can the Corps develop national programs that focus on
preventing flooding rather than just being reactive and
responding to flooding? That is one question.
The second one is: How can the Corps share information on
flooded areas with navigation technology providers to reroute
drivers away from flooded roads and highways?
And the third one, and maybe both of you can address all
three: Does the Corps have the authority it needs to address
stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and recharge aquifers?
I hope I did not overwhelm you with all three questions at one
time.
Mr. James. You almost did.
[Laughter.]
Mr. James. No, ma'am. I will take the ``prevent flooding''
one. I agree with you 100 percent. One dollar of prevention is
worth $10 of fixing. And I agree with you 100 percent. Now, the
only thing that keeps us from doing that is the authorization
and the appropriation of money, both in the President's budget
and by the Congress.
And we realize, and our people, like yourself, out in these
communities bring to us the reasons we need flood control here.
We need it. OK? So we realize that the Corps goes back, looks
at it, but then getting it from there to a product, it is hard,
and it is getting harder all the time.
Now, when a storm hits and washes away everything you have
got, then people are willing to jump in and help you then that
were not willing to help you prevent that flooding. So that is
where we are. And we take what money we can get as a Corps of
Engineers and spread it as thin as we can, although I think
General Spellmon mentioned just a few minutes ago, we are
trying to complete projects with what money we get before
starting another project.
Now, there is an argument there, whether we ought to be
doing that or not. So I hope I did not confuse you.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. No.
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would only add to what the
Secretary said, but just, humbly, a little historical
perspective. I mentioned in my opening statement that the
Nation is experiencing its wettest year on record, at least
east of the Mississippi and over 124 years.
And the Nation, Congress, and the administration have, over
generations, invested in flood control because if this year's
event happened 100 years ago, we have had those type of floods,
and hundreds of people have died. I mean, there are mass graves
in this country that buried the dead from flood events.
We had some deaths this year, but not in the hundreds,
certainly not in the thousands. So now it is getting this
infrastructure ready for the next generation, and all that we
are seeing with changes in precipitation and sea level rise.
And the Corps, we are committed to do our part within all of
our authorities to advance this infrastructure to get it ready
for the next generations that follow us.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. My time is
about out. But what do we have to do to encourage a bit more
focus on prevention? Does it mean legislative authority?
Mr. James. On prevention of flooding? I think we have got a
lot of authorities in general. But on particular projects, they
have to go through the system. They have to have an
authorization, and then they have to have the environmental
work done on it. They have to get a Chief's Report, and
finally, come back to the Congress for appropriations or be put
into the President's budget. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. My time is
expired.
Mrs. Napolitano. The gentlelady yields back.
Lots of Members wanted a second run at it, but we do not
have enough time. And I thank you for your patience.
Some housekeeping questions. Mr. Secretary, Congress
directed the Corps to solicit projects and study requests from
local sponsors and issue a report to Congress through section
7001 of WRDA. As you know, the 2019 report was 5 months late.
Can you commit that the 2020 report, under development,
will be delivered on time in February 2020 to be used to
formulate WRDA 2020?
Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. My fault. I will take care of it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your commitment. And you
heard it.
Can you also provide to the subcommittee the following: A
brief summary of a Chief's Report, eight of them, already
submitted to Congress for authorization, and any known Post-
Authorization Change Reports needing congressional action? You
can provide it for the record.
Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. You have our commitment we will have
those ready in time for the next WRDA bill.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your commitment. And thank
you very much. It has been almost 2\1/2\ hours, and I thank you
for your patience. And we are now concluding this portion of
the meeting. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. James. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Any additional comments and questions may
be submitted for the record and they will go to you.
Now we will proceed to hear from the next panel.
[Pause]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for being here. All of you,
welcome. Thank you for your patience. You heard there was quite
a bit of interest in the Army Corps testimony.
For panel 2 we have Mr. Rob Innis, Sparrows Point,
Maryland, plant manager, LafargeHolcim, on behalf of the
Waterways Council. We have Mr. Chad Berginnis, executive
director, Association of State Floodplain Managers. Then we
have Mr. Tom Waters, chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage
District Association.
Then followed by Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, vice president for
water conservation, the National Audubon Society. Then we have
Mr. Derek Brockbank, executive director, American Shore and
Beach Preservation Association. And finally, Dr. F. Martin
Ralph, director of the Center for Western Weather and Water
Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
And without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
into the record.
Mr. Innis, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ROB INNIS, PLANT MANAGER, SPARROWS POINT,
MARYLAND, LAFARGEHOLCIM, ON BEHALF OF WATERWAYS COUNCIL, INC.;
CHAD BERGINNIS, C.F.M., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF
STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.; TOM WATERS, CHAIRMAN, MISSOURI
LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION; JULIE HILL-GABRIEL,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR WATER CONSERVATION, NATIONAL AUDUBON
SOCIETY; DEREK BROCKBANK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SHORE
AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION; AND F. MARTIN RALPH, PH.D.,
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR WESTERN WEATHER AND WATER EXTREMES,
SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO
Mr. Innis. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
Westerman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My testimony will
focus on the importance of the inland waterway transportation
system.
I currently serve as the plant manager at the Sparrows
Point slag cement facility in Baltimore, Maryland, for
LafargeHolcim. LafargeHolcim produces cement, aggregates,
concrete, and specialty construction solution products used in
building projects ranging from affordable housing to small
local projects to the largest, most technically and
architecturally challenging infrastructure projects.
We operate in more than 80 countries, with over 80,000
employees. We currently operate 30 facilities along the river
system, and in 2018 moved 9.2 million tons by river. If we were
to move this tonnage by truck, it would equate to 368,000 more
trucks on the road.
I am also a board member of the Waterways Council and an
executive committee member. WCI is a national public
organization that advocates for the modern, well-maintained
system of inland waterways and ports. Recently I also became
chairman of the Inland Waterways Users Board.
When thinking of the transportation infrastructure, the
inland waterways system is often overlooked. Our rivers are the
fourth ``R'' of the critical multimodal system of roads,
railway, and runways. In 2017, more than 578 million tons
valued at $220 billion were transported on the inland waterways
system.
Of that tonnage, almost 80 million tons were aggregates,
which is 14 percent of the total tonnage moved along the inland
waterways system. Some aggregates and cement projects sourced
from the river that benefits America included the new terminal
complex at the Louis Armstrong Airport, the Amazon Distribution
Center in Minneapolis, and the I-90 tollway rebuild from
Chicago to Milwaukee.
After only passing two WRDA bills in 14 years, this
committee, starting in the 113th Congress, made WRDA a
priority, passing three bills in 6 years. I would like to thank
the committee for implementing the changes in the WRRDA 2014
that have significantly accelerated the project delivery in the
inland waterways system.
The cost-share change at Olmsted Lock and Dam allowed for
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to operate over the last 6
years at a 25-percent trust fund/75-percent general fund split.
This cost-share change has also accelerated the operability of
Olmsted, allowing for over $600 million in annual economic
benefit to be accrued 4 years ahead of schedule.
Also enacted in 2014 and taking effect in 2014, the inland
waterways industry supported a 45-percent tax increase to the
diesel tax commercial operators pay that is deposited into the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is currently the highest
Federal fuel tax being paid by any mode of transportation.
In WRDA 2016, Congress changed the cost-share model,
refunding the deep draft ports with depths of 45 to 50 feet
from 50 percent non-Federal sponsor and 50 percent Federal
Government, to 25 percent non-Federal sponsor to 75 percent
Federal Government in order to allow the ports to expeditiously
expand capacity to become post-Panamax-vessel-ready. This is
necessary to enable our ports to remain competitive on a global
scale.
In WRDA 2007, this committee created the Navigation and
Ecosystem Sustainability Program, NESP, as an innovate effort
combining two of the Army Corps of Engineers-Civil Works key
missions, navigation and ecosystem restoration. This program
was studied for 13 years at a cost of $74 million.
Upon completion of the feasibility study, the Corps of
Engineers moved directly to Preconstruction Engineering and
Design, PED, for 7 years, spending $62 million before being
abruptly halted. It is discouraging that a project that has
already seen $136 million and 21 years of time invested was
halted. Waterways users, including my company, would like to
see the Corps immediately restart PED. We foresee construction
funding becoming available soon. However, without PED, NESP
will not be ready to receive those funds.
The inland waterways system has a portfolio of more than 15
high-priority inland navigation projects either under
construction or awaiting construction. At the current rate,
many of these projects will not even begin construction for the
next 20 years.
By conforming the cost-share of the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund to the same formula that was approved for the deep draft
ports in WRDA 2016, this committee's actions would allow the
navigation capital program to remain operating at or above a
$400 million level achieved since the cost-share change at
Olmsted, and accelerate project delivery on the portfolio of
the critical inland waterways projects.
As you move forward with WRDA 2020 and any potential
infrastructure bill, I encourage you to consider this proposal
to adjust the cost-share for the construction of inland
waterways infrastructure projects. This is an important change
that will help advance our Nation's competitiveness and keep
America leading at the top.
That concludes my testimony, Madam Chair. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to be here today, and I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other committee
members have.
[Mr. Innis' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows Point,
Maryland, Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways Council, Inc.
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the topic
of ``Water Resources Development Acts: Status of Implementation and
Assessing Future Needs.'' I believe that my comments today will offer
an evaluation of policy changes implemented from past Water Resources
Development Acts (WRDA) that have proven beneficial to the inland
waterways system and its users, and I will also recommend an important
policy change for the modernization of our Nation's inland waterways
transportation system.
I currently serve as the Plant Manager of the Sparrows Point slag
cement facility in Baltimore, Maryland for LafargeHolcim. LafargeHolcim
is the leading global building material and solutions company serving
masons, builders, architects, engineers, and major construction
companies around the world. We operate in more than 80 countries with
over 80,000 employees. LafargeHolcim produces cement, aggregates,
concrete, and specialty construction solutions products used in
building projects ranging from affordable housing and small, local
projects to the largest, most technically and architecturally
challenging infrastructure projects. We currently operate 30 facilities
along the river system, and in 2018, moved 9.2 million tons by river.
If we were to move this tonnage by truck, it would equate to 368,000
more trucks on our roads. We use nearly all of the 12,000 miles of
commercially navigable waterways in the U.S., ship on all five of the
Great Lakes, load barges out of 10 states, and deliver to 25 states, as
well as to Canada. We directly employ over 7,000 people in the United
States and supply products to businesses and government that support
many more jobs throughout the United States. I am a member of the Board
of Directors and Executive Committee of Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI).
WCI is the national public policy organization that advocates for a
modern and well-maintained system of inland waterways and ports.
Recently, I also became Chairman of the Inland Waterways Users Board,
and I serve on the Michigan Port Advisory Board.
The Fourth ``R''
When thinking about transportation infrastructure, the inland
waterways system is often overlooked. In actuality, our Rivers are the
fourth ``R'' of a critical multimodal system of Roads, Rail, and
Runways. In 2017, more than 578 million tons valued at $220 billion
were transported on the inland waterways system. Of that tonnage,
almost 80 million tons were aggregates, which is 14 percent of the
total tonnage moved along the inland waterways system. Some aggregate
and cement projects sourced from the river that Americans benefit from
include the new terminal complex at Louis Armstrong New Orleans
International Airport, Amazon's Distribution Center in Minneapolis, and
the I-90 tollway rebuild from Chicago to Milwaukee.
Recent Successful Policy Changes in WRDAs
After only passing two WRDA bills in 14 years, this Committee,
starting in the 113th Congress, made WRDA a priority, passing three
bills in six years. I would like to thank this Committee for
implementing changes in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
(WRRDA) of 2014 that have significantly accelerated project delivery on
the inland waterways system. A cost-share change at Olmsted Locks and
Dam allowed for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to operate over the
last six years at about a 25 percent Trust Fund /75 percent General
Fund split. This cost-share change also accelerated the operability of
Olmsted, allowing for $600 million in annual national economic benefits
to be accrued four years ahead of schedule.
Also enacted in 2014 and taking effect in 2015, the inland
waterways industry supported a 45 percent increase to the diesel fuel
tax commercial operators pay that is deposited into the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. This is currently the highest federal fuel tax
being paid by any transportation mode.
In the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, Congress changed
the cost-share model for funding construction of deep draft ports with
depths of 45 to 50 feet from 50 percent non-federal sponsor and 50
percent federal government, to 25 percent non-federal sponsor and 75
percent federal government in order to allow ports to expeditiously
expand capacity to become post-panamax-vessel-ready. This was necessary
to enable our ports to remain competitive on a global scale.
Inland Projects Authorized in WRDA
In WRDA 2007, this Committee created the Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (NESP), an innovative effort combining two Army
Corps of Engineers-Civil Works' key missions, navigation and ecosystem
restoration. This program was studied for 13 years at a cost of $74
million. Upon completion of the feasibility study, the Corps of
Engineers moved directly to Preconstruction Engineering and Design
(PED) for seven years, spending $62 million before being abruptly
halted. In 2016, the Assistant Secretary of the Army-Civil Works
ordered more studies--an Economic Re-evaluation Report (ERR) before PED
could continue to move forward. That ERR is set to be completed in
August of this year, but it is still discouraging that there was a
restudy of a project that has already seen $136 million and 21 years of
time invested. Waterways users, including my company, would like to see
the Corps immediately restart PED following this ERR completion. We
foresee construction funding becoming available as soon as FY 2023.
However, without PED, NESP won't be ready to receive those funds. We
are discouraged by this delay and note that projects recently
authorized are already receiving PED.
For example, WRDA 2016 authorized the Upper Ohio Navigation Project
for $2.7 billion. This project has received PED funding the last two
fiscal years. Also, WRDA 2018 authorized the Three Rivers project for
$180.3 million, and that project received PED funding last fiscal year.
Modernizing the Inland Waterways Transportation System
The inland waterways system has a portfolio of more than 15 high
priority inland navigation projects either under construction or
awaiting construction. At the current rate, many of these projects will
not even begin construction in the next 20 years. By conforming the
cost-share with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to the same formula
that was approved for deep-draft ports in WRDA 2016, this Committee's
action would allow for the inland navigation capital program to remain
operating at or above a $400 million level achieved since the cost-
share change at Olmsted, and accelerate project delivery on that
portfolio of critical inland waterways projects.
As you move forward with WRDA 2020 and any potential infrastructure
bill, I encourage you to consider this proposal to adjust the cost-
share for construction of inland waterways infrastructure projects.
This important change will help advance our Nation's competitiveness
and keep America as the leading and most dependable source of goods and
materials. I'm happy to share additional information with Members and
your staff.
That concludes my testimony, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me
the opportunity to be here today, and I will be happy to respond to any
questions you or the other Committee Members may have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Innis.
Mr. Berginnis, you are next.
Mr. Berginnis. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Napolitano and
Ranking Member Westerman. I am Chad Berginnis, executive
director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and I
am honored to be here today.
As we contemplate the most recent round of flooding and the
damages that have been caused in the Central U.S., in our
coastal areas, and even as the result of the failure or near
failure of flood control structures like Oroville Dam, we must
recognize that as a Nation, our current approach is being
outpaced by rising seas, more intense rainfall events, and
skyrocketing flood damages.
Our members are on the front lines of this battle for a
decade, and we have advocated for sensible policies to reduce
flood damages and recognize natural functions of flood plains.
Our written testimony contains over 20 recommendations, and
we would like to highlight a few of those today.
First, we need a coherent flood management policy to
complement our flood control efforts. Among those identified in
our testimony, three critical ones are making room for our
rivers and setting levees and other flood control structures
back, harnessing the benefits of natural infrastructure, and
using nonstructural measures wherever possible, whenever and
wherever structural measures are contemplated.
Throughout the Corps program's guidance, there is a
systematic bias towards structural projects and against
nonstructural projects. We must ensure that Federal programs
like Public Law 84-99 not only require the analysis of such
options but establish a preference for them.
Second, guidance documents like principles and guidelines
that steer solutions toward those that maximize national
economic development need to be replaced by guidance that
prioritizes national economic resiliency and sustainability.
We need to complete national studies, such as those
authorized under section 2032 of the 2007 WRDA, which analyzes
the Nation's vulnerability to flooding.
We must also ensure that regional studies that are being
done for such areas, such as the Southeast and gulf coast and
even those that are called for on the Missouri, are fully
inclusive of all flood loss reduction tools, including
nonstructural.
Third, we believe that there should be organizational
changes in the Corps that unlocks the massive knowledge and
expertise of its staff for the benefits of the Corps itself and
all communities by making technical assistance a top priority.
Today's reality is that the Corps employees cannot even
lead local workshops without some specific project to pay for
it. There were lots of comments earlier today about how the
Corps can leverage the expertise, especially in small and rural
communities. This is one way to do that.
Internally within the Corps, there are Centers of Expertise
like the National Nonstructural Committee, whose role is to
advise both internal customers and Corps districts, but also
communities and the general public. But these are so under-
resourced that they can serve neither very well.
This also means that we leverage the good research and
development that is being done by the Corps and ensure that it
is adopted throughout the agency and disseminated to the
public.
For example, the Engineering with Nature Initiative uses
natural processes and systems in concert with engineered
systems to produce a more diverse array of economic,
environmental, and social benefits.
ASFPM hopes that it is adopted widely within the Corps.
In a unique public-private partnership with ASFPM and FM
Approvals, the National Flood Barrier Testing and Certification
Program helps develop and use consensus standards for flood
abatement products.
But in the 5 years since the standard has been in
existence, we have yet to see the Corps include the standards
in its policies, procedures, or contracts for flood fighting
materials agencywide. We note that some of the flood fighting
products that were used and failed in Iowa this past spring
were not certified.
Finally, we must vastly improve how we communicate flood
risk. Over the last decade we have seen the creation and
availability of online databases like the National Inventory of
Dams and National Levee Database, and these are very promising
developments. But they are missing critical information.
None is more pressing than the information we have chosen
to withhold from the public, inundation mapping where flood
control structures are operational or where they fail. Since 9/
11, this information has been categorized as for official use
only.
Yet when we have incidents like the near catastrophic event
at Oroville Dam in California or the Barker and Addicks
Reservoirs in Texas, it is unacceptable that tens of thousands
of people in harm's way are unaware of their flood risk.
I hope that these observations and recommendations help
better inform your work on the next WRDA, and I thank you for
your time.
[Mr. Berginnis' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chad Berginnis, C.F.M., Executive Director,
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.
Introduction
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) appreciates
the opportunity to share observations about the programs of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and their implementation as part of the
Committee's oversight.
The 19,000 members of ASFPM are partners of the Corps, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies at the
state and local levels in reducing loss of life and property due to
flooding. Our 37 state chapters are active within their states and
often nationally as well. State and local floodplain managers and their
private sector engineering and floodplain management colleagues
interact regularly with the Corps at the Headquarters and District
levels in developing and implementing solutions to flooding challenges.
Floods are the nation's most frequent and most costly disasters
every year and the costs to taxpayers continue to increase. While the
Corps has often successfully engineered structural means of controlling
flood waters, it is becoming more and more apparent that 1) operation
and maintenance costs are exceeding the ability of communities to pay
those costs, which is their obligation; 2) structural projects, while
necessary in some instances, are expensive: 3) traditional projects can
inadvertently increase flood hazards upstream, downstream and across
the river and 4) nonstructural projects can often offer a less
expensive, more sustainable and affordable means of reducing flood
hazards.
To meet today's challenges of riverine and coastal flooding in an
era of more frequent and severe storms, sea level rise, and
skyrocketing disaster costs, it is important that the Corps take a
broad, comprehensive and watershed-based view of overall flood risk
management. To encourage enhanced effectiveness in addressing cost
considerations, the need to protect lives and property, and recognize
the multiple beneficial functions of the natural floodplain, ASFPM
would like to discuss several areas where improvement is needed. We
will address:
Strategic Direction
Flood Risk Management
Levee and Dam Risk Management
Public Law 84-99 program
Principles and Guidelines
Strategic Direction
``The current trajectory of funding water resources projects is not
sustainable.''
This was the take-home message at the 2012 USACE Strategic
Leadership Conference attended by ASFPM as well as several other Corps
partners. In remarks made by senior Corps leadership--with which ASFPM
is in agreement--when you look long term, the Corps must change how it
is doing business. An increased focus on collaboration and problem
solving with partners will be necessary as will making smarter,
strategic investments in infrastructure. Given the increasing cost of
operations and maintenance, funding for new starts and other projects
is being proportionately reduced. Simply put, as a nation, we cannot
afford to keep doing business as we have in the past. More frequent and
intense disasters are making current approaches too costly or rendering
them ineffective.
A more recent troubling trend is that more and more project funding
is coming by way of supplemental appropriations after disasters. Such a
piecemeal approach is nearly impossible to plan for and creates a lot
of frustration at the state and local level.
The Corps is uniquely positioned, with Congressional support, to
help transform itself and take a different, much more collaborative
approach. Rare among agencies, the Corps allocates significant
resources for research and development through entities like the
Institute for Water Resources, and has a long history of expertise in
all aspects of flood-loss reduction--both structural and nonstructural.
Centers of expertise such as the USACE National Nonstructural
Floodproofing Committee focus on measures to reduce the consequences of
flooding versus reducing the probability of flooding. The successful
Silver Jackets program is putting the Corps into a new ``convener''
role. Initiatives like Engineering with Nature and the USACE
partnership with ASFPM in the National Flood Barrier Testing and
Certification Program [https://nationalfloodbarrier.org/] are forging
new paths, leveraging new technologies and approaches to tackle long-
standing flood problems.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance should be seen as a cornerstone of Corps
operations and activities. A significantly enhanced role of technical
assistance and broad-based problem solving/planning for watershed wide
and nonstructural solutions would more effectively deliver federal
expertise at the local level. However, it is still nearly impossible to
leverage Corps expertise on more of an ad-hoc basis, not associated
with a particular Corps project. While Silver Jackets has helped this
at the state level somewhat, it is a sad reality that Corps expertise
is rarely available at the local level unless there is an active
project. Other federal agencies dealing with flooding issues such as
FEMA, NRCS, and the USGS have staff available through their disaster
cadres, capacity building programs at the state level, national call
centers, or distributed staff throughout the U.S. Each is a different
model for providing federal resources at the local level. Given that
the Corps has 45 districts throughout the United States, the basic
infrastructure exists to provide a much better technical-assistance
role than it currently provides. By having a more robust technical-
assistance role at the district level that is not project related, the
research, expertise and knowledge of the Corps could be made much more
widely available.
The Floodplain Management Services (FPMS) [https://
www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Public-Services/Flood-Plain-Management-
Services/] program (authorized as a continuing authority under Section
206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act) theoretically addresses this need
and has provided valuable and timely services in identification of
flood risks and flood damage. The program enables the Corps to support
state, regional and local priorities in addressing flood risks through
collaboration and cooperation by developing location-specific flood
data, which can be used to reduce overall flood risks. Like FPMS, the
Planning Assistance to States (PAS) program was also authorized to
provide valuable and timely services in identification of flood risks
and flood damage. This program also allows for any effort or service
pertaining to the planning for water and related resources of a
drainage basin or larger region of a state, for which the Corps of
Engineers has expertise. These programs have been shown to provide
significant benefits for a relatively small investment. By providing
Corps expertise, these programs assist states and communities to make
better informed decisions and to engage in more comprehensive
consideration of their flood risk and the various options for reducing
the hazard. These can be structural, nonstructural or a combination of
the two and can often lead to less expensive and more sustainable
solutions.
However, FPMS and PAS must be better managed as national programs.
While our data is anecdotal, it appears that these two programs are not
evenly nor consistently administered throughout the country. Certain
Corps Districts have high expertise and capability with these programs
and others do not. We know thorough our work with the Corps that there
do not seem to be mechanisms or processes to comprehensively identify,
collect, review and prioritize requests for FPMS/PAS services, review
projects completed, and adjust program metrics in any consistent
manner. ASFPM believes the demand for these programs significantly
exceeds available resources. All Corps Districts should have the level
of capability as do those that regularly use FPMS and PAS. Another
issue is that the Corps tends to ``projectize'' these services versus
making the technical assistance more broadly and widely available.
Technical assistance is especially important after flood disasters.
Given the current structure and focus of the Corps--most post-disaster
work has been focused on immediate response missions related to
infrastructure and public works and flood response activities (flood
fighting) and repair/rehabilitation work. However, given the Corps
expertise and assets, they can also be brought to bear in providing
technical assistance and problem-solving expertise. For example, post-
Sandy, many of the affected areas have a critical need to understand
the range of different nonstructural flood mitigation options available
to them, however, this has been done only haphazardly in the past.
Develop a significantly more robust and ongoing non-
project related technical-assistance role for the Corps at the district
level, either through FPMS or a new authority. The FPMS and PAS
programs should be authorized at least $50 million each.
The Corps can play a lead role in a model where the federal
government provides incentives to undertake sustainable solutions,
where it provides the technical know-how and expertise to solve a
flooding problem, or where it provides data and information to enable
states and communities to make better decisions.
Research & Development
The Research and Development function of the Corps has several
promising initiatives and programs, but as we have seen with other R&D
initiatives across the federal government, the difficulty lies in
widespread implementation of these initiatives into an agency's
operations.
The first of these is the Engineering with Nature (EWN) [https://
ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/index.html] initiative that is the intentional
alignment of natural and engineering processes to efficiently and
sustainably deliver economic, environmental and social benefits through
collaboration. It incorporates the use of natural processes to maximize
project benefits. ASFPM is very supportive of this initiative and is
encouraged by its results and implementation strategy. The 2018-2022
EWN strategic plan properly focuses on expanding implementation.
However, given the traction we have seen with other initiatives such as
the nonstructural flood mitigation, we are concerned about its ultimate
success.
Congress should set policy on decision making that will
result in natural infrastructure being a preferred alternative due to
its multi-benefit approach
The Corps should commit to fully supporting the
operationalization of the EWN initiative throughout the agency.
The second of these is the National Flood Barrier Testing and
Certification Program (NFBTCP) [https://nationalfloodbarrier.org/]. A
partnership among ASFPM, FM Approvals and the Corps (through the
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)), the NFBTC Program is
a unique public-private partnership, which resulted in the development
of the ANSI 2510 standard and where commercial flood abatement products
(i.e., perimeter flood barriers and flood mitigation pumps) are tested
against that standard. The purpose of this program is to provide an
unbiased process of evaluating products in terms of resistance to water
forces, material properties and consistency of product manufacturing.
Manufacturers pay for the cost of testing and certification and the
public benefits from having flood abatement products that meet
standards. While the European Union has recently adopted the ANSI 2510
standard, we have yet to have it adopted officially in the United
States. This program and the Corps' participation in it aligns with
Section 3022 of the 2014 WRRDA encouraging the Corps to use durable and
sustainable materials and resistant construction techniques to resist
hazards due to a major disaster, and aligns with Director Dalton's
embrace of new technologies.
We must ensure the ERDC water testing facility is capable of
testing products being demanded by the marketplace. Currently, the
facility is only capable of testing perimeter barriers to a height of 4
feet, yet manufacturers are making products that would protect to
heights of 8-10 feet or more. The current facility is in need of a
significant upgrade and/or replacement and ASFPM would be most
supportive of such an effort.
Planning and the Use of Nonstructural Flood Risk Reduction Measures
Overall, ASFPM is concerned about the lack of nonstructural, flood-
risk reduction measures as part of the projects that the Corps is
implementing. While the agency has the authority to implement a full
array of nonstructural measures, today we are seeing very few of these
measures being implemented. Yet these measures have been identified in
community hazard mitigation plans and other planning documents. It
seems that if a project has not gone through a formal Corps planning
process then it does not formally exist. Better coordination between
the Corps and existing community plans, which have proliferated over
the past 20 years (largely as a result of the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000) is essential. As we note later in this testimony,
nonstructural, flood-risk reduction measures have an inherent
disadvantage in most Corps program whether it be through PL 84-99 or as
a result of the Principles and Guidelines. Yet, the array of adaptation
techniques that coastal and inland communities will need to take
advantage of will have to include nonstructural measures or measures
that can include a combination of both. For example, relocating from a
highly flood-prone area is a very popular measure and will be
increasingly important in the future. ASFPM encourages the Corps to
identify and remove systemic biases against nonstructural, flood-risk
reduction measures and elevate the status of such measures
strategically.
ASFPM supports the recent request by Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works R.D. James that Congress provide authority for the
Corps to conduct a study of the Missouri River levees as part of a
system-wide study that would look as reservoir operations and all
levees to evaluate how the systems should be managed, (especially
whether levees should be rebuilt, moved back to reduce erosion and
provide conveyance or removed and see if other mitigation options
employed like buyouts or elevation of buildings, which would be more
effective and less costly). One emerging trend we have observed
nationally that might have applicability on any Missouri River system
study, for example, is concern over the flood control--including large
reservoir releases--and how we might make changes in the USACE water
control manuals for flood operations to reflect new conditions such as
more intense storms.
Flood-Risk Management
The Corps' Flood Risk Management Program was established in 2006.
The program's mission is to increase capabilities across all aspects of
the agency to improve decisions made internally and externally that
affect the nation's flood risk. It implements this mission through
several activities including technical assistance, project planning and
construction, promotion of nonstructural flood risk reduction, flood
fighting, post flood disaster support, and assessing potential climate
change impacts and consideration of adaptation measures. Operationally,
we would like to share our observations and suggestions for
improvement.
ASFPM believes that overall the Silver Jackets program has proven
to be successful and should continue with maximum flexibility to
address individual state's needs and issues. There have been many
benefits to the Corps, and states, tribes, and local governments from
the Silver Jackets program including better coordination and
understanding of the various programs and agencies involved in
comprehensive flood-risk management, identification and coordination of
resources, and development and undertaking of collaborative projects.
It is important; however, that all Silver Jackets POCs from the Corps
embrace the role and vision of the program.
As mentioned above, the Corps is a partner in the NFBTC Program.
One step to facilitate the recognition and adoption of the standard
would be for the Flood Risk Management Program--through the National
Flood Fight Material Center--to require the standard in future
contracts when purchasing flood fighting materials (there are several
manufacturers that now have certified products). While we have had
promising talks with Director of Civil Works Dalton and Chief Delp in
the Rock Island District, we are concerned about support of the program
and use of the standard operationally within the Corps' Flood Risk
Management program overall given our lack of progress to date.
Encourage the adoption of and operational use of the ANSI
2510 standard by the USACE for flood abatement products
The center of expertise for the Corps for nonstructural flood-risk
reduction rests with the National Nonstructural Committee within the
Planning Community of Practice. While we are encouraged after a brief
dissolution and reconstitution of the NNC the past couple of years,
that there is at least some interest in maintaining this function
within the Corps, we continue to be alarmed about its significant lack
of human resources, the stove-piping of the committee (within the
Planning Division) and agency headquarters support/champion.
Levee & Dam Risk Management
ASFPM has developed positions on structural flood control including
the position that levees should never be seen as the only flood
mitigation tool, but part of a mix of tools that include nonstructural
measures like buyouts, building elevations and flood proofing, as well
as levee setback or realignment, designed overflow spillways in levees
and floodways, such as those on the lower Mississippi River that
provide ``room for rivers.'' Furthermore, all levees and other flood
control structures must be designed for future conditions that can be
expected during the life expectancy of the structure. If the levee has
a 50-year life, it must be able to handle the design flood expected in
50 years. All structural projects can result in adverse impacts. It is
important that the Corps examines and enforces requirements to prevent
or mitigate any adverse impacts (social, economic, environmental) from
construction, repair and rehabilitation of structural projects, prior
to or concurrent with the construction of projects.
As we reflect back on past levee related policies, we are reminded
of the many recommendations from the Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain
Management into the 21st Century Report of the Interagency Floodplain
Management Review Committee [https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
collection/p266001coll1/id/2471/] led by General Gerald Galloway after
the 1993 Mississippi River floods. One recommendation never enacted was
a new law to define the responsibilities of federal, state and local
governments, including the levee districts that build and maintain
locally-funded levees.
Despite enormous public investment in flood ``control'' structures,
that spending has been outpaced by development in risky areas and
development in the watershed that increases runoff and flooding, and by
the gradual deterioration of the protection provided by those
structures. As the public grows to recognize the risks associated with
levees, communities are working to evaluate the various actions they
can take in response to those risks: levees can be repaired and
improved or set back from the river to relieve pressure and erosion on
the levee; homes, businesses and infrastructure at risk can be
relocated to reduce risk and restore floodplain function. Waters can be
detained upstream or adjacent to the stream by re-opening areas closed
to flood storage and conveyance, such as Napa, California did. And
measures can be combined to achieve the most effective results with
scarce public dollars, with a particular eye to reducing the long-term
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for communities and taxpayers.
Congress and the Corps should adopt policies for new or
reconstruction of levees that encourage levees are set back from the
water's edge to preserve riparian areas, reduce erosion and scour,
reduce flood levels and flooding risks, and to allow natural floodplain
ecosystems to better serve their natural functions.
We have entered an era of levee ``triage''--the process of
prioritizing federal response to flood risks associated with levees and
rationing scarce federal taxpayer dollars on multiple-objective risk
reduction projects that may include floodplain restoration,
reconfiguration of structural systems, and combinations of approaches
to make the best use of limited public resources.
Generally speaking, any new federal taxpayer funding program for
flood risks associated with levees should be reserved for the top
performers (communities and regions) that have demonstrated nonfederal
leadership in the identification and reduction of flood risk associated
with levees. Projects need to address those risks by leveraging more
fully state and local authorities over land use, infrastructure
protection, development standards and robust building codes.
Additionally, eligibility for a new levee risk management fund should
require that nonfederal partners take specific steps to address flood
risk associated with levees in the following ways:
1. Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program;
2. Adopt a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Action Plan that
includes emergency action and planning for residual risk areas
associated with all levees and residual risk areas in their
jurisdiction, including post-flood recovery and resiliency;
3. Prevent the construction of critical facilities in areas
subject to inundation in the 0.2%-chance floodplain, and require that
all existing CFs be protected, accessible and operable in the 0.2%-
chance flood;
4. Evaluate the full array of nonstructural measures to reduce
risk, implement effective nonstructural measures in combination with
any structural measures that are selected, and adopt standards to
prevent any post-project increase of risk (including probability and
consequences), prior to any commitment of public funds toward levee
work;
5. Demonstrate binding and guaranteed financial capacity and
commitment to long-term operations and maintenance, rehabilitation and
management of all levee structures and system components in the
community's jurisdiction;
6. Adopt short- and long-range flood risk reduction planning in
residual risk areas as part of the community's mitigation, development
and land use planning;
7. Communicate with property owners in residual risk areas,
including spillway easement areas, to notify them of their risk, advise
them of the availability of flood insurance, update them on emergency
action plans, report on levee operations and maintenance over the past
year, and for other public notification and engagement activities; and
8. Consideration of flood insurance behind levees either through
individual policies or with a community-wide policy. The rate should be
commensurate with the risk (higher levee protection, lower cost
policies).
ASFPM would like to note some positive developments in recent years
regarding levee and dam risk management. The first of those has been
the development of and public access to the National Levee Database
(NLD) [https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/#/] and National Inventory of
Dams (NID) [https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=105:1]. ASFPM was
pleased to see the opening of the NLD for public access in 2018 (this
follows the public access to NID, which occurred in 2015). This is an
important evolution in the levee risk management to ensure the public
has access to essential information regarding these flood-risk
management structures. According NLD, there are nearly 30,000 miles of
levees with over 46,000 levee structures having an average age of 55
years.
Another positive development was the Corps' new policy [https://
www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/
EngineerCirculars/EC_1110-2-6074.pdf?ver=2018-01-22-100438-250] on
Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) and required inundation mapping (EC 1110-
2-6074). This policy standardizes inundation mapping and establishes
inundation mapping requirements for dams and levees. In theory, having
inundation mapping available to the public can help avoid debacles like
those we witnessed around Barker and Addicks Reservoirs post-Harvey
when thousands of homes in inundation areas of those structures were
impacted. Had local land use planners, property owners and others been
aware of these risks, steps could have been taken to reduce that risk.
However, the new EAP policy includes the following statement: EAP maps
are considered sensitive data and must be marked For Official Use Only
according to AR 380-5 and DoDM 5200.01. In other words, inundation maps
associated with EAPs are not publically available. Why would we be
withholding this vital information on flood risk?
The answer seems to be policy artifacts post 9/11 that neither the
Corps (DoD) nor FEMA (DHS) are willing to overcome. The Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC), a congressionally-authorized advisory
committee helping FEMA oversee the nation's flood mapping program, in
its 2016 report National Flood Mapping Program [https://www.fema.gov/
media-library-data/1474555532007-c063547f6f48026feb
68c4bcfc41169d/TMAC_2016_National_Flood_Mapping_Program_Review_
Updated.pdf] Review, identified a legacy DHS policy through its
Security Classification Guide for the Protection of Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources, which listed dam failure inundation
maps as ``For Official Use Only.'' However, this policy conflicts the
National Flood Mapping Program requirements that such areas be provided
on Flood Insurance Rate Maps and on publically-available databases such
as NLD and NID. As noted in the report, a Virginia law passed in 2008
essentially requires that all inundation mapping developed for state-
regulated dams be made available to communities and the public. This
has now been implemented for a decade without issues and state
officials there believe in supporting wider public availability of
these data. More recently, when speaking to agency officials, there has
been a mistaken belief that this issue had been dealt with. It is clear
to ASFPM that it has not and the unwillingness of agencies to act on it
demands congressional intervention.
Congress should mandate that inundation mapping developed
by the federal government and/or associated with federal programs for
dams and levees be made publically available.
Let's not have a recurrence of the Oroville dam situation from a
couple years ago where a quarter million people were told to evacuate
because the dam's integrity was threatened, and none of them even knew
they would be inundated if the dam were to fail. This is a critical
public safety issue that must be addressed.
Moving from an inventory to a program to address the safety of
levees and to get a handle on the funding needed to ensure the safety
of levees is not a simple process. Evaluating how safe a levee is can
be easier if actual engineering plans exist and there is a record of
the operation and maintenance of that levee. Unfortunately, many of the
non-federally built levees have neither good plans nor O&M records.
Engineers can do a field evaluation of a levee that includes a visual
inspection, but that does not tell us what the material is inside the
levee to determine if it will withstand flood levels at a design flood
or a larger flood. It is also questionable if the Corps should conduct
evaluations beyond visual for non-federal levees using taxpayer funds.
All the above evaluations are complicated because so many
nonfederal levees are simply dirt piled up to keep water from farm
fields, with more dirt added to the levee over time to make it higher,
especially when housing or other development occurred behind the levee.
Just because such a levee has not failed over the years does not mean
it will not fail in the next flood. Requiring levee owners to perform
an analysis of the levee to determine its adequacy and to develop a
plan to properly operate and maintain the levee cannot be done by the
Corps because the federal government does not have land use authority.
States do, but many states to not regulate, or do not have adequate
regulations to ensure levees are adequate.
As a nation, we know little about the condition or risks associated
with levees outside the Corps portfolio. Managing risks associated with
levees in the United States will require diligence and cooperation
among all levels of government, private sector and the public. Further,
the national program must be integrated into and work seamlessly with
other flood-risk management efforts through other agencies. That is why
the implementation of the National Levee Safety Program is urgently
needed. ASFPM participated in the multi-year effort to develop
recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program culminating in a
report [http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/
p16021coll2/id/444] with 20 recommendations made in 2009. The 2014
WRRDA [https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ121/PLAW-113publ121.pdf]
first authorized the program, which was subsequently reauthorized in
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 through federal fiscal year
2023. Among other things, this program will:
1. Establish comprehensive national levee safety guidelines for
uniform use by all federal, state, tribal and local agencies (which
would also provide for adaptation to local conditions);
2. Require better coordination and use of consistent standards and
guidelines among federal agencies;
3. Establish a hazards classification system for levees;
4. Assist states, communities and levee owners in developing levee
safety program including identifying and reducing flood risks
associated with levees;
5. Focus on educating the public of risks living in leveed areas;
and
6. Establish a levee rehabilitation program that is integrated
with ongoing community hazard mitigation programs/plans and requires a
practical floodplain management plan to address adverse impacts of
flooding in leveed areas.
ASFPM is pleased to see that finally, the House passed ``minibus''
spending bill, H.R. 2740, included increased funding for the National
Levee Safety Program. While it does not fund the program at its full
authorization of $79 million, it does provide $18 million.
ASFPM recommends full implementation of the National
Levee Safety Program and ensures that national levee safety guidelines
fully account for future flood conditions based on the levee's
anticipated service life (as opposed to design life) and suggests
appropriate land-use standards to manage the intensification of risk
behind levees.
Activate the National Levee Safety Committee (NLSC) of
federal agencies, state and local stakeholders, professional
associations, and experts as directed in WRRDA 2014 to assist the
secretary to develop consistent guidance for levee siting, design,
construction, operating and management standards, to enhance levee
performance, set appropriate protection levels, and to build-in
resilience and adaptability for existing and future levee-based
systems, (e.g., freeboard, spillways, setbacks, etc.).
An effective National Levee Safety Program would mandate or
incentivize states to have levee safety programs. This could be done by
providing federal taxpayer funding to repair levees on some cost
sharing basis, but it should have provisions indicating the funding
will only be available in states with adequate levee safety programs
where the state can regularly inspect levees and has the authority to
order repairs or removal of inadequate levees so that people and
businesses behind the levee do not have a false sense of security that
the levee will protect them. The authorized Corps Levee Safety programs
needs to be implemented with these provision included.
We want to point out one recommendation contained in the 2009
National Levee Safety Program report that was not implemented in the
2014 WRRDA, but that ASFPM still fully supports: A requirement for the
purchase of risk-based flood insurance in leveed areas to reduce
economic loss, flood damage, and increase understanding of communities
and individuals that levees do not eliminate risk from flooding. Had
such a requirement been in place, the effects from this year's flooding
in the Midwest, especially where levees overtopped and failed, would
have been far less consequential.
It has come to light in recent years that many levees on the
Mississippi River have been raised above their authorized height. The
problem with that is the higher levees at one point in the river will
result in more flooding across the river or upstream and downstream of
that higher levee because the water has to go somewhere. This can lead
to ``leapfrog levee,'' where levee owners on the other side of the
river then raise their levee higher, and the cycle continues.
ASFPM urges strong continued federal oversight of levees
to maintain levees at authorized levels. This should be done by the
Corps or FEMA, and it must be adequately enforced.
We were pleased to see that ASA R.D. James and Deputy Commanding
General for Civil and Emergency Operations Maj. Gen. Scott Spellman
understand the issue. Spellman indicated that changes to any one levee
on the system could cause more problems downstream.
One final note regarding the High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation
Program--ASFPM strongly supports the floodplain management planning
requirement to obtain funding and integration of the dam rehabilitation
with other mitigation efforts. We believe that such plans must be
practical and implementable so that those impacted better understand
flood risk and can take steps to mitigate against the residual risk.
Adjustments to P.L. 84-99
P.L. 84-99, the Corps' disaster assistance authority, is
legislatively built on language that was first adopted in 1941. In
recent WRDAs, we have generally seen only incremental changes, while at
the same time costs of flood disasters are increasing dramatically,
while we are recognizing our overall approaches to flood-risk
management require substantial new direction. As an example, P.L. 84-99
provides by far the most generous cost-sharing formula of all the
Corps' activities, to assist in repair and rehabilitation of disaster-
damaged levees and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects. In
many cases the repairs are coming at high federal taxpayer expense and
are being repeated over and over without serious review because current
policy constrains or bars the Corps from studying and recommending
changes (and makes even the consideration of nonstructural approaches
subject to a non-federal sponsor's consent).
Under P.L. 84-99, the Chief of Engineers, acting for the Secretary
of the Army, is authorized to undertake activities including disaster
preparedness, advance measures, emergency operations (flood response
and post flood response), rehabilitation of flood control works
threatened or destroyed by flood, protection or repair of federally
authorized shore protective works threatened or damaged by coastal
storm, and provisions of emergency water due to drought or contaminated
source. P.L. 84-99, which is the principle Corps program to repair and
rehabilitate, incorporates a significant bias against nonstructural and
integrated approaches (combining structural and nonstructural
approaches) to rehabilitation and repair of flood control works (FCWs).
ASFPM understands that Engineering Regulation 500-1-1, which is the
operational guidance for P.L. 84-99, has been on-again-off-again
process of being under consideration for updating for several years.
ASFPM believes that it is essential for the program to incorporate a
much greater focus on nonstructural approaches.
The Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) provides for
inspections of FCWs, the rehabilitation of damaged FCWs, and the
rehabilitation of federally-authorized and constructed hurricane or
shore protection projects. Any eligible FCW that was damaged by water,
wind or wave action due to a storm is eligible for repair under RIP,
either at 100% or 80% federal taxpayer cost. RIP assistance is
available to federally- and non-federally built FCWs. Operation and
maintenance is the responsibility of the local sponsor, and so long as
there is proper and timely maintenance, the FCW can be included in the
program. Currently, the following FCWs can be included, provided they
meet the eligibility inspections:
1. Federally-authorized and constructed hurricane or shore
protection projects (HSPPs).
2. Federally-constructed, locally maintained levees and
floodwalls.
3. Non-federally constructed, locally-maintained levees and
floodwalls that provide a minimum of a 10-year level of protection with
2 feet of freeboard to an urban area, or a minimum of a five-year level
of protection with 1 foot of freeboard to an agricultural area.
4. Federally-constructed, locally-maintained flood control
channels.
5. Non-federally constructed, locally-maintained flood control
channels that provide a minimum of a 10-year level of protection.
[NOTE: Interior drainage channels within the protected area of a levee
system are not flood control channels.]
6. Pump stations integral to FCW.
7. Federally-constructed, locally-maintained flood control dams.
8. Non-federally constructed, locally-maintained flood control
dams.
This is a very broad range of infrastructure for which the Corps
takes responsibility after declared disasters, much of which is
provided through supplemental appropriations through the Flood Control
and Coastal Emergencies account. An unfortunate side effect of the
current eligibility standards is that non-federal entities responsible
for operations, maintenance and repairs are driven to defer maintenance
until after the system is damaged by a flood event. P.L. 84-99
eligibility needs to be modified to assure that any federal investment
in levee work targets structures that pose the greatest public safety
risk, and incentivizes responsible nonfederal actions in levee
operations, maintenance and repair.
Conform this program's cost-sharing with other flood-
damage reduction programs to reduce federal disaster costs, reduce
risks and support greater use of comprehensive flood-risk management
and nonstructural approaches.
Since this program provides significant federal taxpayer dollars
for repair and rehabilitation of levees and dams for which local
entities have signed operation and maintenance agreements, it seems
entirely appropriate to associate a set of requirements to be met by
those entities in order to qualify for federal assistance. ASFPM
recommends that eligibility for P.L. 84-99 be available only after the
following steps have been taken:
The entity responsible for operation, maintenance and
repair (OM&R) has adopted and demonstrated compliance with an approved
OM&R plan.
Responsible entity must communicate annually with
property owners in residual risk areas, including dam or levee failure
and spillway easement areas, to notify them of their risk, update them
on emergency action plans, report on levee operations and maintenance
over the past year, and for other public notification and engagement
activities.
Responsible entity must demonstrate binding and
guaranteed financial capacity and commitment to long-term operations
and maintenance, rehabilitation, and management of all levee structures
and system components in the community's jurisdiction;
Jurisdictions in residual risk areas must:
Participate in the NFIP,
Adopt a FEMA approved hazard mitigation action plan
that includes emergency action and planning for residual risk areas
associated with all levees and residual risk areas in their
jurisdiction, including flood-fighting, post-flood recovery and
resiliency, and
Prevent wherever possible the construction of new
critical facilities (CFs) in areas subject to inundation in the 0.2%-
chance floodplain, and require that all new and existing CFs be
protected, accessible and operable in the 0.2%-chance flood.
P.L. 84-99's treatment of nonstructural options is limited. ER-500-
1-1 indicates:
Under P.L. 84-99, the Chief of Engineers is authorized, when
requested by the non-federal public sponsor, to implement
nonstructural alternatives (NSAs) to the rehabilitation,
repair, or restoration of flood control works damaged by floods
or coastal storms. The option of implementing an NSA project
(NSAP) in lieu of a structural repair or restoration is
available only to non-federal public sponsors of FCWs eligible
for Rehabilitation Assistance in accordance with this
regulation, and only upon the written request of such non-
federal public sponsors.
Unfortunately, this is consistent with the underlying statutory
language, first adopted in WRDA 1996. The result? Little or no
consideration of nonstructural measures, even when such measures could
be more cost-effective, and more consistent with the Corps' re-released
Environmental Operating Principles and subsequent policy guidance from
Corps leadership.
The reality is that funded work should evaluate the full array of
nonstructural measures to reduce risk, implement effective
nonstructural measures in combination with any structural measures that
are selected, and adopt standards to prevent any post-project increase
of risk (both probability and consequences), prior to any commitment of
public funds toward levee work. Since nonstructural options are only
considered on an ``as requested basis,'' the requirement that the
repair or rehabilitation approach be the ``least cost to the
government'' alternative cannot logically be met because in the vast
majority of the cases, not all alternatives are being evaluated. We can
no longer afford to ignore possibly less expensive nonstructural
alternatives. Specific modifications needed include:
For every project, explicitly require consideration of
realigning or setting back levee segments, and integrating setback
levees to the fullest practicable extent in any federally-funded levee
work, including repairs under P.L. 84-99.
Levee setbacks improve public safety and environmental management
and help account for and mitigate current and future uncertainties and
reduce the risk of failures as well as improve floodplain and natural
ecological functions.
In Sec. 1160 of WRDA 2018 Congress added realignment as a potential
P.L. 84-99 rehabilitation option, but, again, has left this up to local
sponsors whether even to consider. We specifically urge removing the
present constraint requiring the Chief of Engineers to obtain a
sponsor's consent to study or recommend such alternative actions. We
would also urge that funding be made available to conduct such
alternative analyses wherever appropriate, particularly in any
situation with a history of repetitive P.L. 84-99 repairs. This
important modification to P.L. 84-99 can help reduce ``pinch-points''
in levee systems and bridge crossings that are often damaged or fail in
repeated flood events, resulting in continued property loss, economic
disruption and federal spending on repairs and disaster payouts. In
cases of repeated levee failures or where existing levee alignments
create significant pinch points or other risks, the Chief of Engineers
should be able to initiate consideration of options to reduce long-term
risks and repair costs.
Congress and the Corps should remove bias towards
structural projects and against nonstructural projects.
This includes consideration of nonstructural measures in every
instance and not solely at the request of the sponsor; removal of
funding caps for nonstructural measures; reconsider the present policy
which requires local sponsor to provide all lands easements, rights of
way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRDs) for nonstructural projects
to allow federal funding for lands for nonstructural project
rehabilitations; provide greater equivalency in repairs to
nonstructural measures after a subsequent flood event; and requirement
for consideration of benefits and costs over the long term, which
should recognize and incorporate the non-commercial and societal
benefits of nonstructural and nature-based design approaches in P.L.
84-99. Other ASPFM recommendations include:
Including a provision for expedient buyouts of structures
and land under P.L. 84-99. Due to the existing bias against
nonstructural measures, this is not now currently feasible. However,
these should be pursued with the same expediency as levee repairs just
after a flood has occurred, versus through the normal project
development process.
Requiring the Corps to identify and report on frequency
and losses associated with repetitive loss levees and other P.L. 84-99-
supported flood control works.
Requiring a full suite of flood-risk mitigation options
(including relocation or realignments, setbacks and nonstructural
approaches to reduce costs and risks) for P.L. 84-99 assistance
(similar to NFIP and Stafford Act repetitive loss mitigation).
Consideration should be given to reducing federal subsidies in
P.L.84-99 as the repetitive costs and disaster assistance claims rise.
Revision of USACE Principles and Guidelines (P&G)
Federal activities and Corps investments in water resources and
flood-control projects have been guided by a process that has remained
largely unchanged for 30 years, despite a growing record of disastrous
floods. The first set of ``Principles and Standards'' was issued in
September 1973 to guide the preparation of river basin plans and to
evaluate federal water projects. Following a few attempts to revise
those initial standards, the currently utilized principles and
guidelines went into effect in March 1983. Since then, the national
experience with flood disasters has identified the need to update
federal policy and practice to reflect the many lessons learned and
advancements in data, information and practice.
Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA
2007) called for revision to the 1983 Principles and Guidelines (P&G)
for use in the formulation, evaluation and implementation of water
resources and flood control projects. WRDA 2007 further required that
revised principles and guidelines consider and address the following:
1. The use of best available economic principles and analytical
techniques, including techniques in risk and uncertainty analysis.
2. The assessment and incorporation of public safety in the
formulation of alternatives and recommended plans.
3. Assessment methods that reflect the value of projects for low-
income communities and projects that use nonstructural approaches to
water resources development and management.
4. The assessment and evaluation of the interaction of a project
with other water resources projects and programs within a region or
watershed.
5. The use of contemporary water resources paradigms, including
integrated water resources management and adaptive management.
6. Evaluation methods that ensure that water resources projects
are justified by public benefits.
In general, these requirements represented important goals for
updating the P&G to respond to changes in the nation's values and
increasingly looming concerns for our water resources nationally. In
December 2014, the Obama Administration published an updated set of
guidelines called the Principles, Requirements and Guidelines, which
some federal agencies have implemented, but since the FY 2015
Consolidated Appropriations legislation, the Corps has been barred from
implementing the revised P&G, or to make much in the way of needed
changes in approaches or technical aspects of project planning. While
Congress had some questions about the specific proposed revisions, we
believe that an updating of project planning and evaluation procedures
continues to be a strong current and future need to respond to present
and changing priorities.
As an example, a major weakness of past benefit-cost analysis for
water resources projects has been the failure of project planners to
realistically account for the full life-cycle project costs over
project lifetimes. This results in a bias for structural projects that
require significant long-term O&M and rehabilitation costs, whereas
nonstructural designs often have little or no maintenance, masking the
true costs of alternatives.
ASFPM recommends that in developing implementation
guidance for the P&R, agencies must require a full accounting of long-
term operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement
costs be included in benefit-cost analyses for all structural and
nonstructural projects, and identify which costs are a federal
responsibility or the responsibility of non-federal sponsors or other
interests.
The 1983 P&G require selection of water resources projects that
maximize net National Economic Development (NED), regardless of total
costs to taxpayers or the social or environmental impacts.
ASFPM recommends that the Corps and other agencies
develop and transition federal planning principles to a National
Economic Resilience and Sustainability standard instead of the current
National Economic Development standard to explicitly incorporate the
values of multiple ecosystem services, including the non-market public
values provided by the nation's floodplains and ecosystems.
Floodplain management, public safety and long-term environmental
quality and sustainability would, in many instances, improve by
expanding to a resilience/sustainability standard approach.
Another major concern with water resources projects is that they
should be designed and analyzed on conditions that will exist at the
end of their design life. For example, if a levee is designed for a 50-
year life, the level of protection it will provide must be calculated
using the hydrology (rainfall and runoff) and sea level rise that can
be projected for the end of that design life. As extreme rainfalls
increase and sea level rises, it is foolhardy to not use these future
conditions in design and BCA analysis. We are currently seeing levees
that no longer provide the design level of protection because design
rainfalls have increased from 25-45%, thus the design flood height is
much higher. In those cases, levee overtopping and failure result in
excessive damage because development in the ``protected area'' now
experiences flooding at great depths and damages. Nonstructural options
like elevation of buildings or relocation would not experience that
catastrophic damage. All such information needs to be factored in the
BCA analysis
During the dozen years since WRDA 2007 was enacted, costly and
disruptive floods have continued to plague nearly all parts of the
nation, with the extended Midwest flooding this year, and with major
Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard flooding, from 2017 and 2018 hurricanes
providing the latest reminders of the extent of the nation's
vulnerability. ASFPM believes that the nation can no longer afford to
continue on its current path of authorizing and funding projects
through a process that is so heavily biased toward structural
approaches without comprehensive review of environmental impacts and
consideration of nonstructural alternatives, and without fully
leveraging state and local authorities in land use, infrastructure
maintenance and building codes. While the 1983 P&G needs to be retired
and replaced by a modern and updated P&G as soon as possible, we note
also that in Section 2032 of WRDA 2007, Congress had called for a
report on the nation's vulnerability to flooding, including risk of
loss of life and property, and the comparative risks faced by different
regions of the nation. The report was to include the following
elements:
An assessment of the extent to which programs in the U.S.
relating to flooding address flood-risk reduction priorities;
The extent to which those programs may be encouraging
development and economic activity in flood-prone areas;
Recommendations for improving those programs with respect
to reducing and responding to flood risks; and
Proposals for implementing the recommendations.
Unfortunately, while started, this study was never completed, yet
the need for these analyses and recommendations in this area continues
and is more urgent now than ever. We urge the Committee to redouble its
efforts to bring forward these or similar initiatives into focus and
move them to completion to help guide the nation forward to meet
critical water resources and flood-related challenges ahead.
Federal policy initiatives such as the update of P&G and making
investments through regular and supplemental appropriations that are
underway could be informed by the findings and recommendations
anticipated to emerge from this report. We urge Congress to insist on a
timely completion and delivery of this report.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to share our observations with
you. We hope you find them helpful in your oversight of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers programs and direction and in consideration of the
next Water Resources Development Act. If you have any questions, please
contact ASFPM Executive Director Chad Berginnis.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Berginnis.
Mr. Tom Waters, you are recognized.
Mr. Waters. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
committee, and I want to include staff, too.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony
regarding the Water Resources Development Act and the Missouri
River.
As chairman of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association, I represent levee and drainage districts,
businesses, associations, and individuals interested in the
activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River and its
tributaries.
I am honored to have this opportunity to provide comments
on behalf of the levee association's membership and fellow
Missourians who have been impacted by this year's flooding.
I am a seventh-generation farmer. I produce corn, soybeans,
and wheat in the highly productive bottomlands along the
Missouri River. I know and understand the importance levees and
flood control projects play in protecting lives and property in
my community and communities across the Nation.
Now, I could read 17 pages of testimony, but I do not think
you want me to do that, and I do not want to do that. So I
would rather just make three points this afternoon.
First, the current Missouri River flooding is not over. The
reservoirs in the Upper Basin in Montana and North Dakota and
South Dakota are full. Reservoirs in Kansas have an abundance
of water, and reservoirs in Missouri and the Osage Basin are
full as well.
All three of these basins are going to flow water down the
Missouri River, and it has got to get to St. Louis by the next
spring. So that is going to keep the river high.
We know it is going to be high above flood stage probably
through the rest of this summer, fall, and into winter, and
with over 100 levees breached along the Missouri River,
flooding is going to continue to be a problem.
It is going to take a long time to recover these levees,
and it is going to take funding. I hope this committee and
Congress will act quickly and decisively to push the Corps
forward with funding and oversight so repairs could be made as
soon as possible.
My second point, flood control needs to be the number one
priority for the Missouri River Reservoir system. This was a
once highly engineered system, but over the past 20 years, it
has been used to conduct supersized science experiments for two
birds and a fish.
These experiments have decimated the flood control system,
dike notching, destroyed dikes, revetments, and other
structures in the river. Open channels and chutes along the
river have caused the river to flow differently than it used
to.
Changes in storage levels, changes in how and why we
release water, all have changed and taken away from flood
control in the system. We have to get back to flood control as
the top priority.
We have reached the tipping point, and we can no longer
continue to conduct failed experiment after failed experiment
at the expense of people's lives and livelihoods, and I said
``lives'' because people have died.
Missouri and Iowa farmland was not meant to be the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service laboratory, and Midwestern farmers no
longer want to be their guinea pigs.
It brings me to my third point, and that is that it is not
just the Missouri River. Flood control infrastructure needs to
be a national priority. Just like the highway system, the power
grid, internet, and communications infrastructure, flood
control infrastructure has been left behind.
Flooding takes place nearly every day in this country
somewhere. Just look at your TV. Every morning you can see it
is flooding somewhere, most recently, day before yesterday,
here in Washington.
We spend billions of dollars in flood recovery, and in
comparison, we spend very little on prevention, and we cannot
build an umbrella over the coastlines to protect us from
hurricanes, and we cannot bolt together the fault lines to
protect us from the earthquakes.
But we can build flood control infrastructure. Floods do
not discriminate. They do not choose Democrats over
Republicans. They do not choose rich over poor, East over West,
and North over South.
Flood control is not a partisan issue. It is an issue
impacting the entire country, and as such, the entire Congress
should support prioritizing flood control infrastructure as
money for infrastructure projects is appropriated.
I thank you, and I ask that my written comments be included
in the record, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[Mr. Waters' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage
District Association
Chairman DeFazio and members of the United States House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
Water Resources Development Act and the Missouri River. As chairman of
the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association, I represent levee
and drainage districts, businesses, associations and individuals
interested in the activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River
and its tributaries. I understand the importance of this committee's
work as it relates to flood control and the protection of human lives
and property. I am honored to have this opportunity to provide comments
on behalf of the levee association's membership and fellow Missourians
who have been impacted by flooding this year.
I am a seventh generation Missouri farmer. My family farming
operation produces corn, soybeans, and wheat in the highly productive
bottomlands along the Missouri River. As president of three local levee
and drainage districts, I know and understand the importance levees and
flood control projects play in protecting the lives and property in my
community and communities across our nation.
2019 has been a difficult year for people living and working along
the Missouri River. The Missouri River system was overwhelmed by
inflows well above any seen before. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has been tasked with managing record-breaking runoff into the Missouri
River Flood Control System this year. The extraordinary runoff proved
to be too much for the Army Engineers to handle and the result was
major flooding from above Sioux City, Iowa to St. Louis, Missouri,
along the River and several tributaries.
My testimony will center around three points. 1) Recent flooding
and funding needs for levee repairs and flood recovery, 2) Desperately
needed changes in the management and operations of the Missouri River
Reservoir System, and 3) Long-term improvements to flood control
infrastructure across the nation. In addition to these comments, I have
attached an article, I wrote in April, about this year's flood and the
Missouri River.
2019 Missouri River Flooding
The 2019 Missouri River Flood is not over. High flows on the
Missouri River will continue well into summer as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers continues to release water from the mainstem reservoir system
in the Upper Missouri River Basin. In addition to the mainstem system,
reservoirs in Kansas and in the Missouri Osage Basins have an over
abundant supply of water, which will have to be released during the
same time period. These releases will combine to keep Missouri River
flows above flood stage at most locations. Any additional heavy
rainfall will cause additional flooding.
The, now infamous, ``Bomb Cyclone'' hitting Nebraska and South
Dakota early this spring brought snow and heavy rain which overwhelmed
the Missouri River flood control system. The bomb cyclone was followed
by a second round of heavy snow and rain later in the spring causing
even more damage throughout the Missouri River Basin. Levees have been
overtopped, breached and eroded by the high-water event. Communities
have been inundated, homes and businesses lost and in rural areas,
farmers have lost not only their homes, but also their 2018 crops
stored in flooded bins, their machinery and their livestock. Hopes for
planting a crop this year have dwindled away as the river continues to
scour across flooded fields.
Flooding in the Midwest impacts the entire country. The Missouri
Department of Transportation closed more than 470 different routes in
114 counties from April 29 to June 14. Many remained closed today.
Railroad tracks were washed out and train traffic was stopped and
disrupted by delays and re-routing. Flooding hindered the movement of
products through the states of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas with
impacts across the entire nation. Barge traffic on the Missouri River
was also disrupted.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The flood control system of levees, which has been weakened by
years of lack of improvement, has been decimated. The following is a
list of levees overtopped or breached in the Kansas City, Omaha and St.
Louis Corps of Engineer Districts:
Kansas City District Levee Status
federal levees overtopped
March Event Overtoppings
MRLS 500-R (KS) Iowa Point Drainage District No. 4 (First Federal Levee
to overtop since 1993) Doniphan, KS March 21
federal levees that have breached:
MRLS 246-L Brunswick-Dalton Levee District, Chariton County, May 31
non-federal levees that have breached:
March Event Breaches
Union Township Levee (MO), Holt County, March 16
Holt County 10 Levee (MO), Holt County, March 16
Holt County 9 Levee (MO), Holt County, March 18
Rushville-Sugar Lake Levee, Platte County, March 21
Platte County #1 Section #1 Tie-Back Levee
Platte County #1 Section #2 Tie-Back Levee
Walcott Drainage District #1 Levee, Wyandotte County, KS, March 23
Corning Levee, Holt County, March 16
Recent Breaches
Brunswick Levee. Carroll County, May 23
DeWitt Levee, Carroll County, May 23
Mi-De Levee, Carroll County, May 23
Labadie Section #4 Levee (Intentional), Franklin County, May 22
Cambridge Levee, Saline County, May 23
Lower Morrison Bottom Levee, Gasconade County, May 28
Prison Farm Levee, Cole County, May 28
Northeastern Saline Levee,
Saline County Levee, May 28
Saline County #2 Levee, Saline County, May 28
Garden of Eden #1 Levee, Chariton County, May 30
Garden of Eden #2 Levee, Chariton County Levee, May 30
Garden of Eden #3 Levee, Chariton County May 31
West Glasgow Levee, Saline County, May 30
Tri-County Drainage District Levee (Ray, Clay, Jackson Counties) Ray
County, June 1
Belcher Lozier Levee
Reveaux Levee, Callaway County, June 1
Sugartree Bottom Levee (Intentional), Carroll County, June 1
Howard County #4 Levee, Howard County June 1
Howard County #7 Levee, Howard County, June 4
Levasy Levee (Not in PL84-99 Program) June 1
Cooper County #1 Levee, Osage County, May 30
Bonne Femme Levee, Howard County June 1
Ray-Carroll Levee, Ray/Carroll Counties May 31
Renz Levee, Callaway County, June 7
Capitol View Levee, Callaway County, June 7
non-federal levees that have overtopped
March Event Overtoppings
Canon Levee (MO), Holt County, March 20
Grape-Bollin-Schwartz Levee (KS), Leavenworth/Atchison Counties, KS,
March 20
Bean Lake Levee (MO), Platte County, March 20
Henry Pohl Levee (KS), Atchison County, KS, March 21
Kansas Department of Corrections Levee, Leavenworth County, KS, March
23
Walcott Drainage District #2 Levee, Wyandotte County, KS, March 23
Walcott Drainage District #3 Levee, Wyandotte County, KS, March 23
Recent Overtoppings
Ray-Carroll Levee Overtopping Stopped with flood fight and intact
Howard Bend #3 Levee, Section 1
Cooper County #1 Levee
Howard County #6 Levee, Howard County, May 23
Howard County #3 Levee, Section 2, Howard County, May 31
Howard County #3 Levee, Section 1, Howard County, May 23
Howard County #2 Levee, Howard County, May 31
Chamois #1 Levee
Chamois #2 Levee, Osage County, May 24
Chamois A-1 Levee
Diermann Levee, Gasconade County, May 24
Jacobs Levee, Callaway County, May 24
Tebbetts East Levee, Callaway County, May 24
Tuque Creek Levee, Warren County, May 25
McBaine Levee, Boone County, May 27
Big Bend Levee, Carroll County, May 29
Whitman Levee, Chariton, May 29
Wainwright Levee, Callaway County, June 1
Malta Bend Levee, Saline County June 1
Henrietta-Crooked River Levee, Ray County June 1
Plowboy Levee, Moniteau County, May 24
Linneman-Weekly Levee, Cooper County, May 23
Egypt Levee
Hartsburg #1 Levee
Hartsburg Levee #2 Levee
Hartsburg #3 Levee, Boone County May 31
Mokane Levee
Steedman Levee
Holtmeier Levee Association
2019 Missouri River Flood--March & April Overtopped and Breached Levees
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2019 Missouri River Flood--May & June Overtopped and Breached Levees
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Omaha District Levee Status
Levee System Status as of May 31, 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
Reference River Levee System Last PL84-99 Program Previously # of Breach
Location Update Participation Overtopped Breaches Repaired
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council Missouri L611-614 05/31/19 Federal x 3
Bluffs, IA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenwood, IA Missouri L601 05/31/19 Federal x 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenwood, IA Watkins Ditch L601-Watkins Ditch 04/04/19 Federal x
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont Missouri L594 05/31/19 Federal x 5
County, IA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamburg, IA Missouri L575 05/31/19 Federal x 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamburg, IA Nishnabotna L561 04/04/19 Federal x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atchinson Missouri L550 05/20/19 Federal x 7
County, MO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atchinson Missouri L536 04/04/19 Federal x 7
County, MO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarpy County, Missouri R616-613 Federal x 1
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarpy County, Missouri R616 04/04/19 Federal x
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarpy County, Missouri R613 04/04/19 Federal x 1
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otoe County, Missouri R573 04/04/19 Federal x
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nemaha Missouri R562 04/04/19 Federal x 10
County, NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brownville, Missouri R548 04/04/19 Federal x
MO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulo, NE Missouri R520 04/04/19 Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarpy County, Platte Western Sarpy 04/04/19 Federal x
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Creek, Platte Clear Creek 04/16/19 Federal x 4 2
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley, NE Platte Union Dike 04/16/19 Non-Federal x 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ames, NE Platte Ames Diking 04/04/19 Non-Federal x 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisville, Platte YMCA Camp Kitaki 04/04/19 Non-Federal x
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cass County, Missouri Lake Wa Con-Da 04/04/19 Non-Federal Boils
NE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
St. Louis District Levee Status--Mississippi River
Breaches
Brevator Levee
Winfield Main Levee
Pike Grain #3 Levee (Intentional)
Pike Grain #4 Levee
Kissinger Levee
Elsberry Levee
Chouteau Island Levee
Elm Point Levee
Kuhs Levee
Ste. Genevieve #2 Levee (Intentional)
Winfield Pin Oaks Levee
Nutwood Levee
Overtoppings
Foley Levee
King's Lake Levee
Sandy Creek Levee
Consolidated North County Levee
Greens Bottom #1 Levee
Greens Bottom #2 Levee
Bluffdale Farms Levee
Robertson Mutual Levee
Keach Levee
Hillview Levee
Schaefer Levee
Eldred Levee
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Levee Repairs and Recovery
The Kansas City District Corps of Engineers Emergency Management
office estimates recovery and levee rehabilitation from this year's
flood event will be the largest rehabilitation program in their
district since the great flood of 1993. They expect to receive between
80 and 90 requests for assistance from levee sponsors. Many of these
have already been received and more requests continue to come into the
office as levee sponsors assess damages. Damage will range from loss of
grass cover from top and side wash to eroded levees and full-blown
breaches with some systems having multiple breaches.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
USDA is also assessing damages and planning for many requests for
assistance recovering land damaged by the fast and destructive river
flows. Assistance for damaged fields, flooded grain bins, lost crops
and lost livestock will all be a part of the USDA programs to help
farmers damaged by the flooding. But none of it will be enough to cover
all the loss and suffering many farmers are facing. Crop insurance
never covers all the farmer's losses and USDA assistance usually comes
with some sort of cost-share farmers can find hard to match. The
agricultural economy has been struggling and during some of the worse
times for agriculture in recent years, this devastating flood will
cause some farmers to lose their business. In some cases, farms handed
down for generations will be lost.
Congress must act quickly to fund levee repairs. The recovery from
the most recent flood events prior to this year has been slow and
painful. Some levees along the Missouri River still had not been fully
repaired from flooding in 2015, when this year's flood hit. In some
cases, it has taken 3-4 years to complete the levee rehabilitation
process. The recovery from this year's event must be handled better.
At this time, it is difficult to assess flood damage. The
continuing high flows from upper basin reservoirs are preventing Corps
of Engineers teams from completing damage assessments. It will take
time for these teams to be able to do their work and have a good idea
of the expenses related to the levee repairs. Once this work is
completed, levee sponsors will need Congress to act quickly to make
funding available for the repairs. Communities, business, property
owners and the states economies all depend on levee protection and they
are depending on Congress to act quickly with enough funding to meet
their needs.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The number one industry in Missouri is Agriculture. With one-third
of the grain produced in Missouri coming from the 100-year floodplain,
the state's economy is directly impacted by flooding and by levee
breaches left unrepaired. The flow required to flood this highly
productive land is much less when levees are left unrepaired. Levee
sponsors rely on Congress to provide the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
the needed funding for levee repairs.
Delays in funding for repairs hamper an already slow and cumbersome
process. I fear additional flooding and losses as we wait for levees to
be repaired along the lower Missouri River. I hope this committee and
all members of Congress will act quickly and decisively to push the
Corps forward with funding and oversight to see the repairs are made as
soon as possible.
Missouri River Reservoir Operations
The Missouri River Flood Control System has been hijacked and it is
no longer being used to provide flood control as it was designed. For
over 20 years, the Corps of Engineers has been forced by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to manage the system to conduct super-sized
science experiments for two birds and one fish. The threatened and
endangered interior least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon.
These failed experiments have included: changing system storage amounts
and how water is released, notching dikes, revetments and other
structures in the river, opening chutes and channels along the river,
and even causing intentional flooding. The experiments have weakened
the system's ability to provide flood control and the result has been
flooding of greater magnitude and frequency.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Flood control must be the number one priority for the management
and operation of the Missouri River Reservoir System. We have reached a
tipping point and we can no longer continue to conduct failed
experiment after failed experiment at the expense of people's lives and
livelihoods. Missouri and Iowa farmland was not meant to be the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's laboratory and midwestern farmers no longer
want to be their guinea pigs.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
After changes in the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual in
2004, the Corps has been trying to manage and operate the system
equally for all eight authorized uses for the system. The simple fact
is all uses are not equal and the system cannot be managed to make them
equal. The system was built and designed to provide flood control. Like
anything else, when one uses something for a purpose it was not
designed for, more often than not it fails. This is true with the
Missouri River Reservoir System. You cannot put a gallon of water in a
quart jar and you cannot dismantle the system of dikes and structures,
open chutes to send water out of the channel, misallocate stored water,
conduct experiments for fish and birds, and expect to provide flood
control. The system must be used the way it was designed. It must be
used for flood control. We have seen what happens when flood control is
not the top priority for the system. Lives have been ruined, businesses
lost, and people have died.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Need for Flood Control Infrastructure Improvements
The decline of our flood control infrastructure is not limited to
the Missouri River. The lack of emphasis on flood control over the past
20-plus years and the current inadequate infrastructure must be
addressed as a national priority. Congress must act together to correct
the problem.
Flooding occurs nearly every day somewhere in the United States. In
his testimony during a recent U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works field hearing, Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy
Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, United States
Army Corps of Engineers, opened his remarks with a brief review of the
many places across the country impacted by flooding this year. He said,
``At one point, over 300 river gauges indicated a flood stage somewhere
in the Nation, and there were over 183 reported ice jams on rivers
across the northern portion of the country.'' He went on to describe
flooding occurring in Ohio, the Vicksburg Corps District, the Corps'
Memphis District, North Dakota, Colorado, California, Oregon and of
course along much of the Missouri River.
The long list of flooding locations serves to remind us the lack of
attention to flood control infrastructure over the past several years
is a national problem, which impacts nearly every corner of the
country. Floods do not discriminate. They do not choose democrats over
republicans or vice versa. Floods don't choose rich over poor, north
over south or east over west. Flood control is not a partisan issue. It
is an issue impacting the entire country and as such, the entire
Congress should support prioritizing flood control infrastructure as
money for infrastructure projects is appropriated.
In conclusion, this committee needs to remain aware of the ongoing
flooding along the Missouri River. The flood is not over and the people
of the Midwest and the River itself will need your leadership, guidance
and support to recover from this devastating disaster.
Flood control must be the number one priority for the operation and
management of the Missouri River. Using the system for fish and bird
experiments has degraded the effectiveness of the flood control system
and costs our country billions of dollars.
There is a nationwide need for improvements to the country's flood
control infrastructure. Improvements need to start here and now with
this committee and with Congress. The failure to address the need for
flood control infrastructure will lead to more flooding of greater
magnitude and frequency.
Without flood control transportation and commerce are interrupted,
sewer and water supply are put at risk, and some of the nation's best
farmland is left out of production. Without flood control people's
lives are put at risk and yes, people die. Simply put, without flood
control, nothing else matters.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments to your
committee. I look forward to working with each of you to help reduce
flooding across the nation and provide better protection to the
American people.
__________
attachment
Flooding: Where We Are, Where We've Been and Where We Need to Go
By Tom Waters
April, 2019
The flood of 2019, wreaked havoc in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas and
Nebraska. From Omaha to Kansas City over 100 breaches in levees allowed
the Missouri River to spread across some of the nation's most
productive farmland and through Missouri and Iowa communities. In each
case, levees preformed as designed. However, the volume and velocity of
the River exceeded the design of the flood control system.
Heavy snow and rain running into the River caused it to rise to
record levels. Most of the runoff entered the River below Fort Randall
Dam. Water running into Lewis and Clark Lake (Gavins Point Dam) had to
be released through the dam, because the Lewis and Clark Reservoir has
little to no storage available. It is a regulation dam, which means
what comes into the lake must be released. Compounding the excessive
rain and snow event was a breach of the Spencer Dam on the Niobrara
River in Nebraska, allowing even more water to run into Lewis and Clark
Lake. The system was overwhelmed and could not handle the amount of
water being released by reservoir operators working for the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
The Bomb Cyclone which brought heavy snow and rain happened quickly
and did not allow time for thousands of citizens to move grain,
equipment, property and belongings out of harm's way. The result is
millions of bushels of grain loss, homes destroyed, livestock losses
and lives ruined. One farmer I talked to loss his home, his machinery,
and over half his 2018 crop, which was stored in grain bins. He will
not be able to plant a crop in 2019, and doubts his bank will loan him
money to recover and continue to farm in the future. This 5th
generation farmer is only one example of thousands suffering from the
lack of flood protection needed to prevent Missouri River flooding.
For decades, the federal government has focused Missouri River
Operations on fish and wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
used the Endangered Species Act as a huge hammer to force the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to change the way the flood control system is
operated on the Missouri River, resulting in an incapacitated flood
control system. The Missouri River is a highly engineered river. In the
upper basin, above Yankton, South Dakota, the world's largest system of
dams and reservoirs were built to capture snow melt and spring runoff.
Below Yankton, levees and smaller lakes and reservoirs provide flood
protection as water is released from the system above. Sadly, the
system, as originally designed, was never finished and the Pick-Sloan
Plan for the Missouri River never reached its intended potential.
The system was originally built for flood control. Along with flood
control, engineers designed the lower river to provide navigation to
move products up and down the river. For decades, the flood control and
navigation system brought great economic benefits to the Missouri River
Basin. These two primary purposes also allowed for other benefits to
develop such as water supply, hydropower, irrigation, water quality
control, and recreation, which includes fish and wildlife.
In 1973, things began to change. With the passage of the Endangered
Species Act the Corps of Engineers began changing structures in the
river, which were designed to provide for a 300, wide and 9, deep
channel. The Corps began notching dikes, revetments and other
structures designed to control the flow of the river and provide flood
control and navigation in the lower river. The notching continues
today, 46 years later. Other changes have taken place over the years.
Drought periods impacted the recreation industry in the upper basin and
upper basin states began to push for changes in the way reservoir
levels were managed. This kicked off a period of great contention
between upper and lower basin states.
As calls for changes in the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual, were made by upper basin states, some environmental groups saw
an opportunity to take-over the management of the River. They pressed
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get involved. Three threatened
and endangered species were identified and the power of the endangered
species act would soon cause a dramatic shift in the way the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers operated the system. Instead of using the highly
engineered system for flood control and navigation as originally
designed, the Corps of Engineers found itself dismantling the system
piece by piece through increased dike notching and conducting
experiments for the Fish and Wildlife Service. These experiments are
designed to ``connect the river to the floodplain'' or in more
understandable terms ``designed to cause flooding along the Missouri
River''!
Failed experiment after failed experiment over the past 20-plus
years has substantially changed the previously highly engineered river.
Structures which once provided a stable channel have been weakened, and
in some cases removed. Side channels and chutes have been opened to
allow the River to flow uncontrolled and cause erosion and scouring.
Flood control has been diminished and riverboat pilots find it hard to
navigate the channel, which has become dangerous at many locations. A
system once used to provide flood control is now being use as a super-
sized science experiment for two birds and a fish. As a result, we are
seeing greater floods more often, human lives have been lost and people
are enduring great suffering. All the while, no scientific evidence can
be found to show any of the changes have even helped the fish and two
birds!
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent over 2/3 of a Billion
Dollars making changes to the River since 2005, in the name of Missouri
River Fish and Wildlife Recovery. Meanwhile, we continue to see more
water entering the River at higher velocities. Note the Graph below
from the Corps of Engineers:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prior to 1973, the runoff above Sioux City reached the upper decile
level only three time, while since 1973, runoff has been in the upper
decile 11 times. Clearly, more water is coming into the system, more
often.
Changes must be made! The flood of 2019, can more accurately be
describe as the flood of 1973 through 2019. Dike notching began in
1973, the first of many changes to the original river design. In 2004,
congress approved changes to the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual which no longer held flood control as the primary purpose for
the flood control system. Instead, the Corps is forced to try to
balance all the purposes of the system to the determent of their
ability to provide flood protection.
When one uses something in a way it was not designed to be used it
often fails. When hooking a tractor to a plow too large for the
tractor, the tractor may pull it for a short time, but eventually the
tractor will give out and likely ruin the engine. Trying to put a
gallon of water into a quart jar only causes a mess on the table top.
Likewise, using the flood control system for science experiments is
failing and making a mess of the Missouri River Basin.
Many want to blame the Corps of Engineers for the recent flooding
and floods of the past. After all, the Corps operates the flood control
system. Right? While it is true the Corps operates the system, we will
do well to remember the Corps of Engineers is the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. These solider engineers follow orders and those who
follow orders best rise to the top of the Corps. Colonels do what
Generals order them to do and Generals do what the Generals above them
order them to do. We must understand where the orders to conduct
science experiments with the Missouri River flood control system came
from.
Ultimately, the Corps of Engineers' orders come from Congress.
Congress needs to change the orders! Pressure from well-funded
environmental groups, over the years, has caused Congress to blindly
make changes in the way the Missouri River system is operated and
removed flood control as the system's top priority.
Flood Control MUST be the top priority for the operation of the
Missouri River flood control system. Flood control was the original
purpose for building the system back in 1944. Flood control is even
more necessary today than it was in 1944. Inflows into the system are
greater and the system has not been improved to meet the challenges of
higher flows and greater velocities. The system has been modified to
reduce flood control rather than improve flood control. The tipping
point has been reached and people have suffered enough!
By making flood control again the top priority for the management
of the system, infrastructure improvements can be made and flooding can
be reduced--even eliminated. We cannot build an umbrella over the
coastlines to protect people from hurricanes and we cannot bolt
together the fault lines to protect people from earthquakes, but we can
build flood control infrastructure to protect people and property from
flooding. They do it in Holland and China, and we can do it here in the
United States. The key is for Congress to make flood control the
priority.
Making flood control the top priority for management of the
Missouri River should be easy for Congress to do. Following flood after
flood along the Missouri River congress has spent millions upon
millions of dollars for recovery. Congress needs to spend money up
front to prevent the damages in the first place. Improving
infrastructure now can reduce or eliminate the expense of recovery
later.
Some will say let's just move everyone and everything out of the
floodplain and allow the river to run wild. These uneducated scholars
do not understand the economic value of the farmland found in the
nation's bottomlands. In Missouri alone, over one third of the crop
production is located in the fertile river valleys. The highly
productive soil found adjacent to the nation's rivers makes our country
strong. A hundred thousand acres of river bottomland can produce enough
calories to feed over 1 Million people for an entire year. What a waste
it would be to allow rivers to run wild and destroy such a valuable
part of our nation's strength.
Food production makes the United States strong. When we want to put
pressure on other countries, we use food to encourage them to do the
right thing. When we want to help other countries, we send them food.
Food is the strength and leverage we have many other countries only
wish they had. Protecting our food production in turn protects all
Americans. Sure, the United States has the strongest military in the
world, but as a peaceful nation, food is the most powerful tool we can
use before turning to the use of bullets.
Following the 1993, and 2011, floods on the Missouri River, the
greatest recovery expenses were related to agriculture. It only makes
sense to protect the rich farmland along the River. To do this, flood
control must be the top priority and the ludicrous practice of
``connecting the river to the floodplain'' must stop. Levees and other
flood control infrastructure must be improved and the system must be
managed to provide the protection it was designed to provide.
It took a long time to tear down the once highly designed system
and it will take time to bring it back to the level of protection it
once provided. But with Congress designating flood control as the top
priority, these changes can begin. At the same time, fish and birds can
survive, a safe water supply can continue, barges can ply the river and
the other uses can flourish. Making flood control the top priority does
not mean an end to all other uses and purposes for the River. It simply
means the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will use the system as
originally designed to protect human lives and property.
Meanwhile, the flooding for this year is likely not over. The
system is primed for more flooding and the Missouri River could reach
even higher levels at some locations than we saw earlier this year. A
second storm in the plains of the upper basin dumped more rain and
snow, all of which must eventually move through the system. The Corps
of Engineers will have to increase releases to move water from the
upper basin reservoirs. In addition, The Corps will need to begin
making releases from reservoirs in Kansas which have been holding water
back to aid with flooding downstream of Kansas City. The combination of
releases from Kansas and the Upper Basin will keep the river high
through the spring and summer. Heavy rains anywhere along the river
will likely cause additional flooding this year. With over 100 levees
already breached and communities and property left unprotected, the
combination of reservoir releases and heavy rainfall this spring or
summer could bring even more heartache and devastation to the Missouri
River Basin. This, as recovery begins and the people along the Missouri
River seek help to put their lives and livelihoods back together.
The Congressional Delegations in the Midwest cannot do it by
themselves. It will take the entire Congress to understand and fix the
problem. The decline of our flood control infrastructure is not limited
to the Missouri River. Flooding occurs nearly every day somewhere in
the United States. In his testimony during a recent U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works field hearing, Major General
Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
Operations, United States Army Corps of Engineers, opened his remarks
with a brief review of the many places across the country impacted by
flooding this year. He said, ``At one point, over 300 river gauges
indicated a flood stage somewhere in the Nation, and there were over
183 reported ice jams on rivers across the northern portion of the
country.'' He went on to describe flooding occurring in Ohio, the
Vicksburg Corps District, the Corps' Memphis District, North Dakota,
Colorado, California, Oregon and of course along much of the Missouri
River. The long list of flooding locations serves to remind us the lack
of attention to flood control infrastructure over the past several
years is a national problem, which impacts nearly every corner of the
country.
The lack of emphasis on flood control over the past 20-plus years
and the current inadequate infrastructure must be addressed as a
national priority. Congress must act together to correct the problem.
Floods do not discriminate. They do not choose democrats over
republicans or vice versa. Floods don't choose rich over poor, north
over south or east over west. Flood Control is not a partisan issue. It
is an issue impacting the entire country and as such, the entire
Congress should support prioritizing flood control first. Without flood
control, nothing else matters.
Tom Waters is a seventh-generation farmer and Chairman of the Missouri
Levee and Drainage District Association. He operates his family farming
business in the Missouri River bottoms East of Kansas City, Missouri.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Waters.
Now the Chair recognizes Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel.
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
Westerman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
I am Julie Hill-Gabriel, the vice president for water
conservation at the National Audubon Society, and on behalf of
our more than 1 million members, 23 State offices, and over 400
independent local chapters, Audubon's mission is to protect
birds and the places they need for today and tomorrow.
Just like people, birds need water, and because of that,
Audubon has made water conservation a core part of our
conservation strategy. We work in places that are globally
significant for birds and people, like the Colorado River and
network of saline lakes in the arid West, the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi River and its delta, the gulf coast, the
Delaware River, the Everglades, and the Platte River, among
many other places.
And aquatic ecosystems are really the liquid heart of
America's environment. They provide drinking water for hundreds
of millions of people while also showing innumerable benefits
for wildlife and our Nation's economy.
As we discuss implementation of past Water Resources
Development Acts and look ahead to future legislation regarding
water infrastructure, it is critical to prioritize the
investments in the aquatic ecosystem mission of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
One international model of success for ecosystem
restoration can be found in America's Everglades. It truly is
the nonpartisan issue in the State of Florida where you have
local, State, and Federal decision makers all acknowledging the
benefits of restoration efforts not only for the wildlife that
made the Everglades famous, but for addressing issues like the
toxic blue-green algae blooms, red tide, and seagrass die-outs
that have plagued Florida's coast in recent years.
And the economic consequences of these environmental
catastrophes have truly demonstrated the inextricable link
between the environment and the economy, and Everglades
projects are estimated to produce a four-to-one return on
investment.
Now, equally important are projects like those along the
coast of Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta where
Audubon has owned and managed over 26,000 acres for almost a
century.
A recent study by Audubon and our partners show that the
coast of Louisiana is one of the most important places in the
world for wildlife habitat, some species having 50 percent of
their population using the coast for nesting and breeding
habitat.
The restoration and protection of the Mississippi River
Delta is often advanced with WRDA legislation and is essential
to keeping this important ecosystem from collapse.
Now, the recent success and momentum of ecosystem
restoration efforts can largely be credited to the work of this
committee, getting us back on track. Passing WRDA bills every
other year has enabled us to see significant progress and see
some of these ecosystem projects now become a reality.
In addition to advancing critical ecosystem restoration
projects, provisions in WRDA 2016 and 2018 present important
opportunities to incorporate the use of more resilient natural
infrastructure options, to reduce the impacts of storms,
flooding or coastal erosion, and to promote reliable water
supply.
These can include nature-based options, like restoring sand
dunes, wetlands, oyster reefs, and coastal forests, and they
can be used in place of or alongside traditional
infrastructure, like seawalls, jetties, and levees.
In 2018, Audubon released a natural infrastructure report
that highlighted the benefits of a number of projects from
sediment diversions in Louisiana to living shorelines in
California and North Carolina, to restoring breakwater oyster
reef habitat in Florida, and all of these showed the
significant benefits of this type of infrastructure.
When looking for options to reduce the impact of storms,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found
that across the U.S. coastal wetlands are estimated to provide
more than $23 billion in storm protection services every year,
and in watersheds that contain 15 percent wetlands, peak floods
can be reduced by up to 60 percent.
Despite the clear statutory language in recent WRDA bills
directing the Army Corps to consider natural infrastructure
alternatives, very few of these measures are being implemented.
More effort is needed to ensure that the Army Corps can
capture the multiple benefits provided by these measures and to
require the Corps to conduct a full evaluation of a natural
infrastructure alternative in each study addressing flood and
storm damage reduction.
Audubon stands ready to work with the Army Corps and the
subcommittee and other partners to find innovative and
efficient ways to advance water infrastructure and help protect
birds and the places they need.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today because we truly
believe that where birds thrive people prosper.
[Ms. Hill-Gabriel's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water
Conservation, National Audubon Society
Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be present here today,
representing the National Audubon Society (Audubon), to discuss the
status and future needs of Water Resources Development Acts. Audubon's
mission is to protect birds and the places they need, today, and
tomorrow. Audubon represents more than one million members and has 462
affiliated chapters, 22 state offices, and 41 nature centers across the
country.
My name is Julie Hill-Gabriel, and I am Audubon's Vice President
for Water Conservation, based in Washington, DC. I coordinate Audubon's
water strategy across the United States. Before beginning this new role
in 2018, I worked in Florida for 11 years as Audubon Florida's Deputy
Director for policy, leading our Everglades restoration efforts and
working closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), as
the federal sponsor for these restoration efforts. We appreciate the
consistency of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure in passing Water Resources
Development Acts on a biennial basis since 2014 and the willingness to
conduct important oversight hearings.
Protecting waterbird populations is a foundation of the
establishment of the National Audubon Society. In 1896, Harriet
Hemenway and Minna B. Hall formed the Massachusetts Audubon Society
amid outrage over the slaughter of millions of waterbirds, particularly
egrets and other wading birds who were killed for the harvest of their
feathers. The first Audubon Societies were formed to tackle the dire
threats that birds faced from prolific plume hunting, and to obtain
strong legal protections for birds \1\. By 1898, Audubon Societies were
established in 14 states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Texas, and California. The present-day Audubon began as the National
Association of Audubon Societies in 1905 as an umbrella organization
for these state societies. Theodore Roosevelt was an early, strong
supporter of Audubon and Audubon worked closely with the President to
establish the first bird sanctuary in Florida, which became the basis
for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Graham, Frank, Jr. (1990). The Audubon Ark. University of Texas
Press, Austin, Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, Audubon celebrated the ``Year of the Bird,'' alongside
National Geographic, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and more than 180
other partners, including state agencies, zoos, businesses and
conservation groups, to mark the 100-year anniversary of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As Audubon recognized this centennial and
marked the progress made since the passage of this landmark
conservation law, we recommitted our organization to continue the work
of our founders as we seek to protect birds over the next century.
With an eye toward this history, Audubon's water strategy focuses
on protecting and restoring habitat that is crucial to birds' survival.
Among other places, we focus our efforts in the Arid West through
conservation around the Colorado River and the network of Saline Lakes,
the Mississippi River and its Delta, the Great Lakes, the Everglades,
the Delaware River, the Platte River and the Rio Grande. Audubon works
to ensure that water conservation projects and programs that benefit
birds are included in WRDAs. Audubon also works collaboratively with
the Army Corps in many capacities, including through the Continuing
Authorities Program, in the Upper Mississippi River Systemic Forest
Stewardship Plan and through data collection and monitoring. This
testimony highlights some of these issues that have received attention
in recent WRDA bills.
1. Ecosystem Restoration Mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Army Corps has three primary mission areas: navigation, flood
risk management, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Army Corps
ecosystem restoration activities seek to restore significant ecosystem
function, structure, and dynamic processes. Ecosystem restoration
efforts often involve an examination of the problems contributing to
the system degradation, and the development of alternative means for
their solution. Continued commitment of resources to this mission area
will enable the Army Corps to make progress on critical ecosystem
restoration efforts like those discussed in more detail below.
Restoring America's Everglades:
The Everglades is a unique ecological treasure that provides the
drinking water for one in three Floridians. As projected population
growth and impacts from climate change put more pressure on South
Florida's environment, Everglades restoration is increasingly urgent.
Clean and sufficient freshwater forms a critical component of Florida's
tourism economy. Recent toxic blue-green algal blooms, seagrass die-
offs and outbreaks of red tide have occurred where the alteration of
the ecosystem limits water management options. Significant economic
losses have transpired as a result of these water quality and water
management disasters.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was authorized
in WRDA 2000 and represents the Army Corps' largest aquatic ecosystem
restoration initiative to move the right amount of freshwater to the
right places at the right time. After nearly 20 years of progress and
bi-partisan support, five major Everglades infrastructure projects were
recently completed or are expected to be complete by the end of 2020.
After a devastating flood in 1947, the Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control Project (C&SF Project) was authorized as part of the
Flood Control Act of 1948. After the implementation of the C&SF project
resulted in both periods of drought and flooding and a decline of 90%
of wading birds in the Everglades \2\, Congress authorized a
Comprehensive Review Study of the C&SF project in 1992 (Restudy). The
purpose of the Restudy was to modify the C&SF project to restore the
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for other water-
related needs of the region. The Restudy culminated in CERP, which was
then authorized by Congress in 2000. Each component of CERP is
identified by the Army Corps as part of the C&SF project and CERP
projects are funded under a line item for ``South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration.'' CERP was broken up into more than 60 components, and
eight of these were authorized in WRDA 2007, 2014, and 2016. Three
additional components are in planning stages and expected to have a
Chief of Engineers Report within the next two years. Because individual
projects are all included within a single appropriations line item, and
because CERP itself is an extension of the original C&SF Project, these
components build upon ongoing construction work and should not be
considered new construction or new planning starts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Davis, S., and J.C. Ogden. (1994). Everglades: The Ecosystem
and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, US
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study conducted by Mather Economics, Measuring the Economic
Benefits of Everglades Restoration,\3\ demonstrates the potential
economic benefits from Everglades restoration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mather Economics. (2010). Measuring the Economic Benefits of
Everglades Restoration: An Economic Evaluation of Ecosystem Services
Affiliated with the World's Largest Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Mather Economics, 43 Woodstock Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075.
``Our analysis strongly suggests that restoration of the
Everglades as described and planned in [Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan] will have large economic benefits.
Our best estimate is that restoration will generate an increase
in economic welfare of approximately $46.5 billion in net
present value terms that could range up to $123.9 billion. The
return on investment, as measured by the benefit-cost ratio,
assuming a cost of restoration of $11.5 billion, is also high
and significant, 4.04, which means for every one dollar
invested in Everglades restoration $4.04 dollars are generated.
Everglades restoration will also have an incremental impact on
employment of about 442,000 additional workers over 50 years.
In addition, the Corps of Engineers estimates there will be
22,000 jobs created as a result of the actual restoration
projects. Throughout our analysis, we have taken a very
conservative approach to estimation. Accordingly our best
estimates almost surely understate the return on investment of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades restoration.''
The Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) that was authorized
in WRDA 2016, was a culmination of important planning efficiencies. The
project planned multiple components together to understand their
interconnected impact, it included more robust technical input from
stakeholders, and the plan was developed in 18 months, which became a
model for the Army Corps' 3x3x3 process which requires projects to be
developed in 3 years, with $3 million, with review by 3 levels Army
Corps leadership.
Through one of the most successful examples of the use of authority
created by Section 203 of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), the non-federal
sponsor for CERP, the South Florida Water Management District, prepared
a CEPP Post Authorization Change Report Feasibility Study and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and recommended the additional of the
Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir to the CEPP project. The study
was determined to be feasible by the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works and was included in WRDA 2018.
WRDA 2018 Section 1308 directed that construction should commence
``only after the Secretary prepares a report that addresses concerns,
recommendations, and conditions identified by the Secretary,'' allowing
90 days for completion of that report. While more than six months has
passed, the report has still not been delivered to Congress.
The EAA Reservoir will store and clean water from Lake Okeechobee
and then reroute it south. This has the dual benefit of diminishing
harmful discharges to the coastal estuaries east and west of Lake
Okeechobee that fuel algal blooms, and instead deliver clean water to
Everglades National Park and Florida Bay where it is desperately
needed.
Another issue that can impact the benefits that can be achieved
from Everglades restoration is the need to secure the federal cost-
share portion of Operation, Maintenance, repair, replacement and
rehabilitation (OMRR&R) funds for completed Everglades restoration
projects.
Per WRDA 2000 section 601(e)(4), the Army Corps and the non-federal
sponsor are each responsible for 50% of the costs of OMRR&R. ``(4)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE--Notwithstanding section 528(e)(3) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), the non-
Federal sponsor shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation
activities authorized under this section.''
The federal contribution in this context is therefore not a
reimbursement--it is an obligation under CERP. Funds not received from
the Army Corps pose a direct impact to the local sponsor and taxpayers,
since these funds do not come from state appropriations. While it was
reassuring to see some OMRR&R funding in the FY20 budget, not receiving
this funding consistently could erode the agreed-upon partnership
between the Army Corps and the non-federal sponsor and cast unnecessary
doubt on the ability to gain the needed benefits from future projects.
Audubon appreciates the consistent support from this committee for
Everglades restoration and looks forward to working together to build
upon the momentum of restoration success.
Addressing Asian Carp in the Great Lakes:
The Great Lakes ecosystem is another globally important place for
birds where Audubon focuses its water conservation efforts. The Great
Lake includes about 20% of the freshwater on Earth and provide a source
of freshwater for 30 million Americans. One of the greatest ecological
threats to the health of the Great Lakes is the invasion of invasive
exotic Asian carp. This species poses a serious threat to the
ecological health of the Chicago Area Waterways System and the Great
Lakes, and the people and economies these waters support. Right now,
Asian carp have already wreaked havoc on the Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers, outcompeting native fish for food and habitat, and creating a
safety threat for people who recreate on these waterways. The
environmental and economic consequences are significant. The Great
Lakes support a $7 billion fishery; a $16 billion tourism industry;
waterfowl production areas that support a hunting economy of $2.6
billion a year; and hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation that
generates approximately $18 billion a year.
The Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study-Brandon Road
Report (GLMRIS-BR) evaluated options to prevent the upstream transfer
of Asian carp. A Chief of Engineers Report for this project was
recently signed after encouragement in WRDA 2018, and authorizing this
project should be a top priority in future WRDA legislation.
Asian carp are a real threat to the Great Lakes that demand quick
action. There is no turning back if Asian carp invade the Great Lakes.
It is much easier to control and prevent Asian carp at one relatively
small choke point than in five massive lakes. The recommended plan will
create additional levels of defense to stop Asian carp from migrating
through the Chicago Area Waterway System.
Protecting the Delaware River Watershed:
In the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, (PL
114-332) that included WRDA 16, the Delaware River Basin Conservation
Act (DRBCA) created the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program
(DRBRP) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, clearly affirming the
national priority of restoring the Delaware River Watershed. The DRPRP
provides a competitive grant and technical assistance program to
support on-the-ground work by state and local governments, non-profit
organizations, and universities.
The Delaware River Basin Commission is a federal-state compact
agency tasked with overseeing a unified approach to managing the
basins' water resources. The Army Corps is the federal representative
for this commission. Despite the recognition of importance of the
commission in the DRBCA, full funding for the Army Corps' participation
has not been appropriated in recent years. In order to advance the
goals of DRBCA, support for both the DRBRP alongside the DRBC is
imperative.
Projects that benefit the Everglades, the Delaware River Watershed
and the Great Lakes are just a small portion of the many projects and
programs that advance ecological benefits through WRDA bills. As the
future needs for WRDA legislation take shape, ecosystem restoration
must remain on par with other Army Corps mission areas and be
prioritized. Restoring America's great aquatic ecosystems are
fundamental for wildlife, the environment and local economies.
2. Facilitating the Use of Natural Infrastructure:
In 2018, Audubon released a Natural Infrastructure Report: How
Natural Infrastructure Can Shape a Resilient Coast for Birds and
People.\4\ This report demonstrated how federal investment in natural
infrastructure will help increase preparedness of coastal communities
and economies, while benefitting fish and wildlife, which also often
provide a critical foundation for coastal economies. Natural
infrastructure alternatives can also provide more resilient options for
inland flood attenuation and water storage in places like the Colorado
River basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Audubon Society. (2018). Natural Infrastructure
Report: How Natural Infrastructure Can Shape a Resilient Coast for
Birds and People. Retrieved from https://www.audubon.org/sites/default/
files/audubon_infrastructure_jan192018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provisions in WRDA 16 and WRDA 18 present important opportunities
to incorporate the use of more resilient natural infrastructure options
to address extreme weather events including flood risk management
projects and hurricane and storm risk reduction projects.
WRDA 2016, Section 1184 states:
In studying the feasibility of projects for flood risk
management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem
restoration, the Corps of Engineers (with the consent of the
nonfederal sponsor) must consider: (1) natural features created
through physical, geological, biological, and chemical
processes over time; (2) human-designed, nature-based features
engineered and constructed to provide risk reduction by acting
in concert with natural processes; and (3) nonstructural and
structural measures.
WRDA 2018, Section 1149 (c) states:
NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE.--In carrying out a feasibility report
developed under section 905 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) for a project for flood risk
management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, the
Secretary shall consider the use of both traditional and
natural infrastructure alternatives, alone or in conjunction
with each other, if those alternatives are practicable.
Despite these clear statutory directions, the Army Corps often
screens out natural infrastructure alternatives early in the planning
process, before their benefits can be fully analyzed. And it is
extremely rare for the Army Corps to select a natural infrastructure
alternative when compared with more traditional options to address
flood and storm risks.
According to a March 2019 GAO report,\5\ the agency faces
considerable challenges in developing cost and benefit information for
some types of natural infrastructure. While the Army Corps may consider
direct incidental benefits such as improving ecosystems and water
filtration, they often have difficulty monetizing such benefits.
Additional information must be gathered in order to ensure that the
Corps can better account for both indirect and direct natural
infrastructure benefits and this should be incorporated into their
benefit-cost analysis. The inability to properly monetize benefits is a
consistent challenge preventing the Army Corps from selecting more
natural infrastructure project alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Consideration of Project Costs and Benefits in Using
Natural Coastal Infrastructure and Associate Challenges. (Publication
No. GAO-19-319). Retrieved from GAO Reports Main Page via GPO Access
database: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural infrastructure alternatives can include nature-based
systems such as restoring sand dunes, wetlands, oyster reefs and
coastal forests in place of traditional human-built projects such as
seawalls, jetties, levees, groins, bulkheads and riprap. This kind of
``grey'' infrastructure has traditionally been promoted as the best
long-term, cost-effective approach to flood management. But natural
infrastructure has been shown to provide significant, long-term and
cost-competitive benefits for challenges such as flood reduction. For
example, research published in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management
reported that the average construction costs between natural and grey
infrastructure are similar, but there are lower replacement costs with
living shorelines, a form of natural infrastructure.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bilkovic, D. M., Mitchell M., Mason P., and Duhring K. (2016).
The Role of Living Shorelines as Estuarine Habitat Conservation
Strategies. Coastal Management. Vol. 44 (3): 161-174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have also identified several
flood-reduction and resiliency benefits from a wide array of natural
infrastructure systems. ``Natural features such as coastal marshes and
wetlands, dune and beach systems, oyster and coral reefs, mangroves,
forests, coastal rivers, as well as barrier islands, help minimize the
impacts of storms, rising sea levels and other extreme events on nearby
communities and infrastructure.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation. (2018). National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation and NOAA announce new coastal resilience funding. Retrieved
from https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/national-fish-and-wildlife-
foundation-and-noaa-announce-new-coastal-resilience-funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands and reefs:
The significant benefits provided by natural infrastructure have
been analyzed by the private sector, including the insurance specialist
Lloyd's of London, which concluded in a 2016 report that, ``[t]here is
strong evidence that reefs and wetlands help protect coastlines under
everyday circumstances by reducing wave energy and raising
elevations.'' \8\ State agencies in flood-prone areas along the
Atlantic coast concur. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean,
a partnership of five Mid-Atlantic States, noted that, ``[c]oastal
wetlands can serve as an initial but important line of defense to
protect coastal cities, towns and infrastructure from climate-related
impacts by storage, conveyance, and wave attenuation.'' \9\ Nationwide,
NOAA has found that peak floods can be reduced by up to 60 percent in
watersheds that contain 15 percent wetlands.\10\ NOAA estimates that
across the United States, coastal wetlands are estimated to provide
$23.2 billion in storm protection services every year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Lloyd's Tercentenary Research Foundation. (2016). Coastal
Wetlands and Flood Damage Reduction: Using Risk Industry-Based Models
to Assess Natural Defenses in the Northeastern USA.
\9\ Environmental Law Institute for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council on the Ocean. (2017). Developing Wetland Restoration Priorities
for Climate Risk Reduction and Resilience in the MARCO Region.
Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/
developing-wetland-restoration-priorities-climate-risk-reduction-and-
resilience-marco-region.pdf.
\10\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Apply It:
Understand--Conserving Coastal Wetlands for Sea Level Rise Adaptation.
https://coast.noaa.gov/applyit/wetlands/understand.html. Accessed July
1, 2019.
\11\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for
Coastal Management. Fast Facts: Natural Infrastructure. https://
coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/natural-infrastructure Accessed July
1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands provided significant flood-buffering benefits to the
states impacted by Hurricane Sandy. According to an analysis in
Scientific Reports, coastal wetlands reduced flood heights and thus
avoided more than $625 million in flood damages across the 12 coastal
states affected by Hurricane Sandy, from Maine to North Carolina.\12\
Among the four states with the greatest wetlands cover--Maryland,
Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia--wetlands are estimated to have
reduced flood damages between 20 to 30 percent. Coastal wetlands in
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware also helped save the largest number of
roadways from Sandy's damaging impacts--about 833 miles. Overall, more
than 1,400 miles of roads and highways were protected by wetlands
during Hurricane Sandy.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Narayan, S, et al,. (2017). The Value of Coastal Wetlands for
Flood Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports. No.
9463.
\13\ PBS News Hour. (2017). Wetlands stopped $625 million in
Hurricane Sandy. Can they help Houston? Retrieved from https://
www.pbs.org/newshour/science/wetlands-stopped-650-million-property-
damage-hurricane-sandy-can-help-houston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eelgrass and seagrass beds:
A variety of experts have evaluated the coastal resiliency benefits
provided by eelgrass and seagrass beds. The National Institutes of
Health reported that eelgrass can slow erosion and stabilize sediment
loss by ``attenuating hydrodynamic energy from currents and waves, and
thereby trap suspended sediment and cause sediment accretion.'' \14\
The roots of seagrass beds have been shown to mitigate erosion by
decreasing or slowing wave impacts on nearshore areas.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Nordlund LM, Koch EW, Barbier EB, Creed JC (2016). Seagrass
Ecosystem Services and Their Variability across Genera and Geographical
Regions. PLoS ONE Vol.11 (10).
\15\ Norlund, L.M., et al. (2018). Seagrass Ecosystem Services--
What Next? Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 134 (145-151).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oyster reefs:
The American Planning Association (APA) and American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) examined elements of naturally resilient
communities and concluded that oyster reefs can have a significant
impact in moderating storm damages on nearby communities. ``Oyster
reefs serve as natural breakwaters--their physical structure absorbs
the force of waves, creating calmer waters on the shoreline side of the
reef and reducing the impacts of erosion. Studies from the Gulf of
Mexico have found that oyster reefs are capable of reducing the energy
of high power waves by as much as 76 to 93 percent.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Naturally Resilient Communities. Oyster Reefs. A http://
nrcsolutions.org/oyster-reefs/. Accessed July 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, living shorelines constructed of oyster reefs have proven
to be more effective than bulkheads in protecting shoreline areas.
Researchers reported in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management that in
North Carolina's Outer Banks, living shorelines protected nearby
shoreline areas from the impact of Hurricane Irene, whereas 75 percent
of regional bulkheads were damaged.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Gittman, R.K., A.M. Popowich, J.F. Bruno, and C.H. Peterson.
(2014). Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines
from erosion better than bulkheads during a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean
& Coastal Management Vol. 102 (94-102).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrier islands, spits and dunes:
In their evaluation of naturally resilient communities, the APA and
ASCE examined the role that barrier islands and beaches can play in
protecting upland communities from storm impacts, finding that
``[b]eaches are capable of reducing impacts from coastal storms by
acting like a buffer along the coastal edge and absorbing and
dissipating the energy of breaking waves, either seaward or on the
beach itself. Dunes serve as more of a barrier between the water's edge
and inland areas, taking the brunt of larger storm surges.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Naturally Resilient Communities. Beaches and Dunes. http://
nrcsolutions.org/beaches-and-dunes/. Accessed July 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional benefits from natural infrastructure:
In addition to providing storm-buffering benefits that can be as or
more effective than grey infrastructure, there are benefits provided by
natural infrastructure that are often absent in grey infrastructure,
making natural infrastructure an even more appealing approach to
floodplain management.
Natural Infrastructure can provide habitat that supports the
economically vital recreational and commercial seafood industries.
Wetlands not only absorb impacts from storms, thereby protecting upland
communities from damaging impacts, they also provide vitally important
habitat that is the lynchpin for the commercial and recreational
fishing industries. According to Florida State University researchers,
marshes in Florida provide up to $7,000 per acre in value for
recreational fishing.\19\ Barrier islands also play a vital role in
protecting areas that are critical to commercial fishing. According to
NOAA, barrier islands in Texas protect sheltered bays and estuaries
from storm impacts, and these bays and estuaries are the foundation of
a seafood industry that generates $846 million and supports more than
14,000 jobs.\20\ Elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, 3.5 miles of oyster
reefs significantly reduce the height and energy of waves while
contributing to more than 6,900 pounds of additional commercial and
recreational catch.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Hughes, R. (2017). How Can We Prevent Salt Marsh Die-Off? The
WFSU Ecology Blog. Vol. 27.
\20\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Barrier Island
Restoration. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/stories/barrier-island-
restoration.html. Accessed July 5, 2019.
\21\ Sutton-Grier, A.E., et al. (2015). Future of Our Coasts: The
Potential for Natural and Hybrid Infrastructure to Enhance the
Resilience of Our Coastal Communities, Economies and Ecosystems.
Environmental Science & Policy Vol. 51 (137-148).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water quality benefits can also be achieved by using natural
infrastructure alternatives that reduce excess nutrients. Along with
stabilizing shorelines and preventing erosion, coastal wetlands can
also ``improve water quality by filtering, storing, and breaking down
residential, agricultural and urban runoff.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Environmental Law Institute for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council on the Ocean. (2017). Developing Wetland Restoration Priorities
for Climate Risk Reduction and Resilience in the MARCO Region.
Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/
developing-wetland-restoration-priorities-climate-risk-reduction-and-
resilience-marco-region.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey infrastructure like seawalls, groins and jetties, cannot adapt
to changes in the nearby environment. In contrast, wetlands and islands
can be responsive to changing conditions and adapt to them, thereby
continuing to provide storm protection benefits as well as habitat. As
NOAA has observed, ``Evidence suggests that coastal dunes dominated by
native plants are better able to move inland in response to sea level
rise while maintaining their integrity and protecting inland habitats
and land uses.'' \23\ NOAA has documented the responsive, adaptive
behavior displayed by oyster reefs and eelgrass beds. These coastal
resiliency benefits ``are increasingly important to buffer shorelines
against sea level rise and increased storm surge and frequency.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Environmental Law Institute for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council on the Ocean. (2017). Developing Wetland Restoration Priorities
for Climate Risk Reduction and Resilience in the MARCO Region.
Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/
developing-wetland-restoration-priorities-climate-risk-reduction-and-
resilience-marco-region.pdf
\24\ NOAA, California Coastal Conservancy, et al. (2017). Case
Studies of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure in Coastal California.
Retrieved from http://scc.ca.gov/files/2017/11/tnc_Natural-Shoreline-
Case-Study_hi.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey infrastructure, such as seawalls, jetties, groins, and
bulkheads, can exacerbate erosion in nearby areas, intensifying flood
risks for properties and communities located in the erosion-impacted
areas. Researchers with the University of Pennsylvania and the
Pennsylvania State University documented these impacts, noting that,
``when seawalls are constructed on eroding beaches, the erosion
continues so that the beach in front of the seawall can become very
narrow or disappear completely. And while groins and jetties trap
sediment on the updrift side resulting in shoreline accretion, there is
corresponding shoreline erosion on the downdrift side due to the
interruption in longshore transport.'' \25\ Natural infrastructure,
such as oyster reefs, restored wetlands, living shoreline
installations, and green spaces provide flood protection benefits
without negative impacts in nearby areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ University of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University,
et al., ``Coastal Processes, Hazards, and Society.'' https://www.e-
education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1066
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Corps implementation guidance around WRDA 2018 Section
1149 (c) states that the Corps is already implementing this provision.
However, the Congressional intent of producing more robust analysis and
greater use of natural infrastructure alternatives has in fact not come
to fruition. Looking ahead to WRDA 2020, additional efforts to overcome
hurdles related to the benefit-cost analysis and other issues that can
enable the Army Corps to make greater use of natural infrastructure
should be pursued.
3. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material:
WRDA 2018 Section 1130 authorized a two-fold increase in the number
of beneficial use of dredged materials (BUDM) pilot projects. Audubon
has worked with the Army Corps and state partners to use dredged
material to restore habitat that is important to birds and outdoor
recreation economies. This work has created and restored islands that
provide excellent nesting habitat for seabirds and shorebirds,
including state-listed species of conservation concern such as Black
Skimmers, American Oystercatchers, and Least Terns, and is leading
innovations in thin-layer dispersal of dredged sediment to protect
tidal marsh habitat in the face of sea-level rise. Audubon looks
forward to building upon our collaborative efforts in Connecticut,
North Carolina, Maine, Maryland, Florida and Texas. In South Carolina,
Audubon is working to implement the Crab Bank project that was selected
as a BUDM pilot project in 2019.
To further facilitate the continued use and expansion of this
important win-win program, funding must be dedicated to its
implementation. A number of projects selected as pilot efforts under
WRDA 2018 Section 1130 and WRDA 2016 Section 1122 have only been able
to proceed using funding from the Army Corps Continuing Authorities
Program because appropriations for the program has not followed the new
authorizations.
In addition, Audubon supports on-going efforts within the Army
Corps to develop and implement best management practices for coastal
engineering projects that benefit shoreline-dependent species that can
be incorporated into beneficial use of dredged material projects. More
information can be found in a recent U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center Technical Note.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Guilfoyle, M.P., Jung J.F., Fischer R.A. and Dickerson, D.D.
(2019). Developing Best Management Practices for Coastal Engineering
Projects that Benefit Atlantic Coast Shoreline-dependent Species.
Technical Note developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center--Environmental Laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ensuring new projects avoid adverse environmental impacts
As projects authorized or approved in WRDA 16 and WRDA 18 advance,
significant effort must be made to avoid adverse environmental impacts.
For example, Audubon has expressed opposition to any projects or
activities on the Pearl River in Mississippi, that involve destroying
wetlands and wildlife habitat that will imperil birds, fish and
wildlife, alter local and downstream river hydrology, impair water
quality and threaten public and environmental health.
In WRDA 2018, Section 1176 sought to establish a demonstration
program to advance a 2018 Integrated Draft Feasibility and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Pearl River Basin, Mississippi,
Federal Flood Risk Management Project, Hinds and Rankin Counties,
Mississippi. The plan was prepared by the Rankin-Hinds Pearl River
Flood and Drainage Control District, whose preferred alternative is
known locally as the ``One Lake'' project.
WRDA 2018 Section 1176(b) directs ``the Secretary to determine that
the project is technically feasible, economically justified, and
environmentally acceptable,'' while Section 1176(d) acknowledges that
``the non-Federal sponsor shall design the project in a manner that
addresses any potential adverse [downstream] impacts [to the Pearl
River Basin] or that provides mitigation.'' These requirements must be
specifically adhered to if the projects proceeds. Before the Secretary
performs any project review, all Environmental Impact Statement and
Feasibility Study documents must fully comply with all required federal
laws. This must include, but not be limited to the National
Environmental Policy Act, provisions of Water Resources Development Act
of 1996, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Coastal Zone Management
Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. This information also must be
officially noticed in the Federal Register with proper and timely
review provided to the public, natural resource agencies, and other
interested stakeholders.
The study cannot be limited to the proposal's immediate footprint
but must be expanded to fully encompass rigorous upstream and
downstream modeling and associated scientific analyses for all river
miles above and below the proposed activity, including the coastal
zones of Mississippi and Louisiana.
The Pearl River is a 490 mile-long waterway, shared by Mississippi
and Louisiana, which is recognized as one of the most intact river
systems in the southeast U.S. while serving as a major input of
freshwater into the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, a Programmatic EIS should be
required to thoroughly quantify any demonstration project's primary,
secondary, and cumulative impacts on the basin's flora and fauna. This
should include at a minimum, impacts on downstream natural resources
and existing industrial users and commercial sectors (i.e., seafood,
tourism), Important Bird Areas, 125,000+ acres of existing conservation
lands, alterations to wetland habitats that help to protect communities
from flooding and storm events, and impacts to multi-million dollar
restoration projects planned or underway across the Central Gulf Coast.
Over the past forty years, there has been an effort to address
flooding in the Pearl River Basin. Several flood control plans have
been developed. Many of these plans have inappropriately incorporated
economic development as a goal. Any demonstration program should place
priority on natural infrastructure solutions, as discussed above and
should be required to evaluate less ecologically damaging and more
comprehensive flood control measures. Some examples include flood-
proofing existing homes and buildings; better management of existing
infrastructure (i.e., Ross Barnett Reservoir); selectively elevating
structures, buy-outs or relocations; setbacks from existing levees;
floodplain restoration within the river basin; and development and
implementation of a comprehensive flood and stormwater Master Plan for
metropolitan areas (i.e., City of Jackson) to coordinate water
management. A detailed, publically vetted mitigation plan should be
submitted to and approved by the Secretary and the appropriate funding
for mitigation set aside in a secure fund allocated for this express
purpose.
Any and all mitigation required for activities in the Pearl River
Basin should be in-kind, occur within the established watershed
boundary, and be identified and tentatively procured prior to the
Secretary's approval.
5. Preliminary Views looking ahead to the next Water Resources
Development Act
As development of the next WRDA begins, ecosystem restoration and
the use of natural infrastructure should be prioritized. As climate
change creates more challenges associated with stronger storms,
increased flooding in some areas and drought in others, projects
directed toward providing ecological benefits can increase climate
resiliency. It is more efficient to invest in projects that increase
resiliency than to react after an extreme weather event occurs.
Audubon also supports robust funding for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and other programs that provide financing to help
communities address water quality and water management infrastructure
needs.
Attempts to exempt Army Corps projects from environmental laws
should also be rejected. As innovative efforts continue to advance
projects more quickly, compliance with environmental laws can ensure
that projects benefit both birds and people.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these important
issues. Audubon is ready to work with the Subcommittee and others to
advance important water conservation issues looking ahead to the next
Water Resources Development Act in ways that will help protect birds
and the places they need. We know that where birds thrive, people
prosper.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, for
your testimony.
And we now turn to Mr. Derek Brockbank. You are recognized.
Mr. Brockbank. Thank you.
America has an engineered shoreline. Nearly every beach on
the east and gulf coast and many on the Pacific and Great Lakes
coasts have been restored, renourished, and reengineered to
mimic natural systems, and estuarine systems from Louisiana to
San Francisco Bay are engineered, either armored with bulkheads
and riprap or preferably with natural infrastructure, such as
restored wetlands and living shorelines.
What connects our shorelines is the need for sand and
sediment. Sand and sediment are the building blocks of a
healthy coastline. Beaches and wetlands are dynamic systems
that should naturally be eroding and rebuilding, but too often
they cannot rebuild because we have prevented sediment from
ever reaching the coasts.
Levees prevent flooding and sediment deposition. Hardened
cliffs, riverbanks, and dams keep sediment out of waterways,
and jetties and dredging send sediment far offshore.
We are facing a coastal sediment crisis, and that is before
we consider the challenges of rising sea levels and localized
subsidence.
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association has been
working with the Army Corps of Engineers for nearly 100 years
to merge science and policy to protect, restore, and enhance
our Nation's coastlines.
We are an organization of beach and coastal practitioners.
We are the communities, industry, local elected officials, and
academics who build, maintain, manage, and research our
Nation's beaches and shorelines.
Thank you for inviting us to speak here today.
We believe the most fundamental thing the Army Corps can do
to better manage coastlines is operate under principles of
regional sediment management, or RSM.
This is a concept that sediment is a resource, not a waste
product, and managing sediment within a watershed or littoral
system, not a project-by-project basis, is more ecologically
sound and saves money.
In short, we need to move sediment within a system, not
remove it.
RSM goes well beyond just reusing dredge material, but an
important part of RSM is beneficial reuse. The Corps dredges
about 214 million cubic yards of sediment per year from
navigation channels. Of that, about 38 percent is used
beneficially.
And while hitting .380 might get a baseball player into the
All-Star Game, the Corps should strive to bat 1.000 and
beneficially use 100 percent of uncontaminated dredge material.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has long
sought to support RSM and beneficial use. WRDA 2016, section
1122, has proven to be tremendously popular with local
communities.
Last year in the span of a month, 94 projects were
submitted to be 1 of the first 10 beneficial uses of dredge
material pilot projects.
After some delays, the Corps can and should implement and
highlight these projects as beacons of what can happen when
Feds and locals work together to manage a scarce resource.
A beneficial use must be systemic across the Army Corps.
One way to do this is to change the understanding of the
Federal standard.
As part of the Army Corps determination of the least-cost
alternative for the disposal of dredge material, the Corps
should include the economic evaluation of sand, including
potential ecosystem restoration benefits, storm damage
reduction benefits, and other economic values and long-term
costs.
The next fundamental way to improve coastal project
development and prioritization is modifying the Corps' benefit-
cost ratio process, the BCR process. BCRs ensure that the
Federal taxpayers only pay for projects that provide positive
economic benefits.
However, in designating a project authorized as flood risk
reduction or coastal storm risk reduction, the Corps will only
calculate benefits derived from reducing flood risk. So that
project will not be designed to support other benefits, such as
habitat or the economy.
Furthermore, a project that does have multiple benefits
must compete for Federal dollars with no advantage against
projects that have a single benefit. In the case of beaches,
the economic value can be remarkably high.
Economist Dr. James Houston has calculated that beach
travel and tourism generates $285 billion to the national
economy and $23 billion in Federal tax revenue annually.
These types of economic figures ought to be considered when
deciding which flood risk management projects to prioritize.
WRDA 2018 did authorize a National Academies and a GAO
study to look at Army Corps dredging practices, and these
studies will help inform the Corps BCR process, but by
themselves they do not actually change anything.
The Corps BCR for flood risk management projects is an
archaic tool that needs to be modernized. Congress needs to
direct the Corps to update its BCR process, either to consider
the full array of benefits or to develop a new methodology for
prioritization that incorporates a project's secondary
benefits.
The result of advancing RSM and beneficial use and
reforming the Corps BCR will be an improved decisionmaking
framework that appropriately values natural infrastructure, the
beaches, dunes, and wetlands that provide flood risk reduction,
but so much more.
Army Corps mandates are too broad and the challenges of the
coast too great for the Corps to continue to focus on projects
that only solve one problem at a time. Natural infrastructure
provides flood risk benefits, ecological benefits, economic and
recreation benefits.
The Corps has been building beaches for 100 years and
restoring wetlands for 50 years. So the concept of natural
infrastructure is not new. The next step is for the Corps to
maximize multiple benefits for individual projects and within
coastal systems.
Finally, the needs of our Nation's coastline are too
enormous to be solved by policy changes and authorized projects
in WRDA alone. Our country must make major investment in
infrastructure that includes dedicated support for coastal
resilience and natural infrastructure.
ASBPA looks forward to working with the T&I Committee to
address these challenges in WRDA and any future infrastructure
legislation.
Thank you.
[Mr. Brockbank's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derek Brockbank, Executive Director, American
Shore and Beach Preservation Association
America's Engineered Shoreline
America has an engineered shoreline. The most iconic beaches in the
country have all been restored, renourished, and re-engineered to mimic
natural systems. The beaches of the Jersey Shore, Virginia Beach, Miami
Beach, Galveston, Malibu, Santa Monica, and Waikiki are part of our
national coastal infrastructure that has been engineered with nature as
a guide. Coney Island was the first significantly engineered beach,
renourished back in 1923. Today, nearly every beach on the East and
Gulf Coast, and many on the West and Great Lakes coasts, have been
engineered. Increasingly, even our estuarine and back-bay shorelines
are engineered, either by ``armoring'' with bulkheads and riprap, or
with more natural solutions such as restoration and living shorelines.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), authorized by and acting
under policy established in Water Resource Development Acts (WRDAs),
has been building natural infrastructure and engineering with nature
for a long time. And the American Shore and Beach Preservation
Association (ASBPA) has been working with USACE for nearly a hundred
years.
ASBPA is an organization of beach and coastal practitioners. We are
the communities, industries, and academics who build, maintain, manage
and research our nation's beaches and shorelines. We are geologists,
engineers, town managers, elected officials, professors, students and
coastal advocates. Our mission is to merge science and policy to
protect, restore and enhance the U.S. coastline; we were founded in
1926 and have been advocating for a healthy coastline ever since.
ASBPA believes a healthy coastline, whether restored or natural,
provides four interconnected values to coastal communities specifically
and to the nation more broadly:
a) Protection from coastal storms, hazards and sea level rise, and
as buffer to sensitive estuarine ecosystems;
b) Ecologically valuable habitat for birds, turtles, fish and
other coastal plants and wildlife;
c) Economic vitality though tourism, shipping, fishing and other
industries;
d) Recreation for tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Americans
who visit the beach in greater numbers than all our national parks
combined.
ASBPA would like to see these values maximized in USACE's
management of our nation's shoreline. Doing so will take USACE using
the full authorities provided to them, and Congress authorizing and
encouraging USACE to use a multi-benefit approach to coastal management
and project development.
WRDA
In the last two WRDAs, Congress has included a number of provisions
that allows or directs USACE to manage the US coastline to achieve
these multiple benefits. The three areas discussed here are:
1) Regional Sediment Management (RSM) and the Beneficial Use of
Dredged Material (BUDM)
2) Modification of the Benefit-Cost-Ratio (BCR)
3) Natural Infrastructure.
regional sediment management and the beneficial use of dredged material
Regional Sediment Management (RSM) is a comprehensive approach to
planning and integrating riverine and coastal projects with the core
principle that sediment is a finite resource not to be wasted. RSM
seeks to move sediment from where it is not wanted to where it is
wanted, rather the simply removing sediment from the littoral system.
RSM can reduce overall costs through cross-business line planning and
budgeting. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDM) is one aspect of
RSM, in which sediment dredged for navigation purposes is used to
benefit a restoration and/or flood risk reduction project. Ultimately,
ASBPA believes that USACE needs to evolve its budgeting and planning
operations to reflect RSM principles so that 100% of uncontaminated
dredged sediment is used beneficially.
On average, USACE dredges about 214 million cubic yards of sediment
per year from navigation channels nationwide. Of that, 82 million cubic
yards (or 38%) is used beneficially on beaches, in wetlands, and in
nearshore water each year.\1\ This is a good first step, but in an era
of sediment shortage--less sediment is reaching the coast than ever
before due to dams, hardened riverbanks and cliff faces, and
straightened channels--and rising seas, anything less than 100%
beneficial usage is not enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal coastal navigation projects were inventoried to examine
the extent to which RSM goals have been implemented across USACE at the
project level. This study examined USACE navigation projects that
beneficially reuse sediments dredged from Operations & Maintenance
(O&M) projects nationwide. These data were derived from a comprehensive
analysis of nearly 20 years of USACE dredging data at both the national
and district level. The data have been quality checked, updated, and
revised over the last five years through extensive interviews of USACE
staff at the District, Division and HQ levels. USACE RSM, 2019. USACE
Navigation Sediment Placement: An RSM Program Database (1998-present),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Sediment Management Program,
https://gim2.aptim.com/rsm, accessed July 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One good example of RSM in practice is at the mouth of Columbia
River in Oregon, where the USACE Portland District is working with
partners to develop a network of nearshore placement sites for dredged
sediment. The goal is to keep material in the littoral zone so that it
feeds the beaches of Oregon and Washington through natural coastal
processes. Placing 500,000 cubic yards of sediment in a nearshore site,
with no more than five centimeters of accumulation on the seabed per
disposal, has yielded $200,000 in cost savings to date, helped
naturally maintain an eroding coastline, and yielded no crab
mortalities (the primary environmental concern with nearshore placement
in this region).
In another example of RSM, near St. Augustine, FL, the Jacksonville
District has combined multiple federal projects so that timing of
dredging and placement is aligned. They have also instituted inlet
bypassing, so less sand accumulates in the St. Augustine Inlet and
instead is distributed to a down drift shoaling area that distributes
sand to eroding beaches. This resulted in a $2 million cost savings
from reduced dredging and associated environmental mitigation efforts
and by combining permits.
WRDA 2016 authorized a pilot program for BUDM (Sec. 1122), that was
expanded in WRDA 2018 (Sec. 1216). Sec. 1122 was slow to get going:
implementation guidance took a year to finalize, and after 90+ projects
were submitted for the initial ten pilot projects, project selection
took nearly another year. But the projects are now underway. One
project, Deer Island Lagoon in MS, has been completed, and USACE has
estimated the remaining nine will be in construction by FY2022,
assuming current dredge timelines hold and construction funding is
available.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FY19 appropriations included an $8.5 million increase to CAP204
(BUDM) to $10 million with report language, ``the Corps is directed to
fund these pilots, if otherwise competitive, under the CAP Section 204
line item and the applicable additional funding line items in this
account.'' FY20 Energy & Water appropriations passed by the House
includes $7.5 million for ``BUDM Pilot Program'' as well as $20 million
for CAP204 (BUDM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local communities have widely supported the 1122 program.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WADEC), the local sponsor for
the ``Grays Harbor South Jetty Placement'' project, used this process
to convene key stakeholders to plan for the beneficial use of dredge
sediment to help protect shipping channel jetties, coastal beaches and
nearshore habitats from erosion while avoiding and minimizing adverse
impacts to environmental resources, and navigation safety. Through the
development of the Grays Harbor project, WADEC identified additional
opportunities for beneficial use in other parts of Washington, and
developed a strategy to achieve economies of scale through coordination
with local partners across the state--reducing the cost sharing
challenges that many communities face. Although the Grays Harbor
project is not impacting the Town of Ocean Shores, WA, Mayor Crystal
Dingler has credited the 1122 process with helping her community by
providing ``invaluable information concerning our ongoing erosion
problems. This continued engagement in our community process to address
emergencies and support long-term strategies are critical to helping
our community make resilient investments for our future. Without such
data and assistance, we are operating blind.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Interview with Bobbak Talebi, Senior Coastal Planner,
Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology, July 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USACE has not publicly determined when or how the additional ten
projects authorized in WRDA 2018 Sec. 1216 will be selected, but USACE
and congressional appropriations committees have each indicated they
would like to see the successful completion of the first ten pilot
projects before constructing the next ten.
What else is needed:
The pilot project is an important step in directing USACE districts
to think more broadly about how they can use dredged sediment and how
they can work with local project sponsors. But this sort of approach
must be systemic across USACE projects, not limited to a handful of
pilot projects, or within districts that seek innovative approaches.
One way to do this is to change the understanding of the Federal
Standard. As part of USACE determination of the ``least cost
alternative'' for the disposal of dredged material, the USACE should
include the economic evaluation of the sand, including ecosystem
restoration benefits, storm damage reduction benefits, and other
economic values and long-term costs. Additionally, reconfiguring
USACE's budgeting so that projects are not budgeted exclusively as
navigation or flood risk management will allow for easier development
of projects that efficiently manage sediment and can support both
navigation and flood risk reduction.
benefit-cost-ratio
Benefit-cost-ratios (BCRs) for water resource infrastructure
projects ensure the federal taxpayer is only paying for projects that
provide positive economic benefits--when benefits outweigh costs.
However, as currently implemented, USACE BCRs have two fundamental
flaws:
a) BCRs are only calculated using the economically verifiable
benefits of a project's primary purpose; and
b) Projects in wealthier communities inevitably get prioritized
over projects in poorer communities, since the economic benefit of risk
reduction is greater for valuable property than inexpensive property.
Using only the economically verifiable benefits of a project's
primary purpose sounds sensible, but it means projects are designed to
maximize just a single benefit, rather than balancing multiple
benefits. A project that is intended to reduce flood risk, such as a
beach and dune system, might also have tremendous value as habitat and
in supporting a tourism-based economy. But in designing a project
authorized as a ``flood risk reduction'' or ``coastal storm risk
reduction,'' USACE will only calculate the benefits derived from
reducing flood risk, so the project will not be designed to support
habitat or the economy. Furthermore, a project that does have multiple
benefits must compete for federal dollars with no advantage against
projects that have a single benefit.
In the case of beaches, the economic value and even the direct
return on investment via tax revenue can be remarkably high. Economist
Dr. James Houston has calculated that beach travel and tourism
generates $285 billion to the national economy and $23 billion in
federal tax revenue annually.\4\ Additionally, beach tourism support
2.5 million jobs directly and 4.4 million jobs including direct,
indirect, and induced impacts.\5\ While USACE is not an economic
development agency, and not in business to generate revenue for the
U.S. Treasury, these economic figures ought to be considered when
deciding which flood risk management projects to prioritize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Houston, J.R. 2018. ``The economic value of America's beaches--
a 2018 update.'' Shore & Beach, 86 (2), 3-13.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, prioritizing flood risk management projects based on
calculation of avoided economic damage means projects in areas of a
high concentration of wealth have a higher BCR than less wealthy or
less densely populated areas. This may be a sensible market-based
decision-making tool, but it exacerbates the problem of lower income
communities living in flood-vulnerable areas without federal support in
reducing risk. It also perpetuates a cycle of development in flood-
vulnerable areas to increase the economic benefits derived from risk
reduction measures. A more sensible BCR or decision-making tool would
account for the societal value created by reducing risk to low-income
communities as well as valuing open space or other flood mitigation
measures that are currently dis-incentivized by the BCR.
WRDA 2018 authorized two studies to look at USACE budgeting
practices, a National Academy of Science (NAS) study on USACE budgeting
(Sec. 1103) and a General Accountability Office (GAO) study on Benefit-
Cost Analysis Reforms (Sec. 1204). To ASBPA's knowledge Sec. 1103 has
not been funded nor begun, while Sec. 1204 is currently underway. Both
of these studies will help reform USACE's BCR process and should be
completed as soon as possible.
What else is needed:
While studies are helpful in clarifying specific challenges to
current policy or operating procedure, as well as recommending
potential solutions or steps for improvement, they don't actually
change anything. USACE's BCR for flood risk management projects is an
archaic tool that needs to be modernized. Congress needs to direct the
USACE to update its BCR process--either to consider the full array of
benefits, or to develop a new methodology for prioritization that
incorporates a project's secondary benefits. While this will support
better projects whose primary purpose is flood risk management, it will
also support better navigation projects that have multiple benefits
(such as important BUDM placement sites, or ecological value in
clearing channels).
natural infrastructure
Wide beaches, high dunes, and verdant wetlands, reefs, mangroves
and seagrass beds are essential to the 40% of Americans who live along
the coast. Properly maintained, this natural infrastructure can improve
communities' resilience and is itself resilient. Dunes and marshes can
adapt to rising seas, and reefs and coastal forests regenerate after
storm damage. The same can't be said for ``grey'' (concrete and steel
based) infrastructure. USACE has been building beaches and dunes for
flood risk reduction for nearly a century and restoring aquatic
ecosystems for more than half a century. It should be looking at how to
fully integrate these missions in combination with its mandate to
maintain coastal navigation. By doing so, USACE can more effectively
restore and rebuild our nation's natural infrastructure, in
collaboration with other federal, state and tribal agencies.
USACE has many authorizations to use natural infrastructure
solutions and to consider natural and nature based features in place of
more traditional grey infrastructure. Recent WRDAs have clarified and
built upon previous authorizations:
WRDA 2016, Sec. 1154 authorized collaborative regional
assessments on coastal resilience that prioritized natural
infrastructure;
WRDA 2016, Sec. 1184 required ``natural features'' to be
considered in feasibility studies;
WRDA 2018, Sec. 1149 specifically allowed ``natural and
nature based features'' to be included in aquatic ecosystem and flood
risk management projects;
WRDA 2016 & 2018 authorized regional coastal resilience
studies in the South Atlantic, Great Lakes, and coastal Texas that
included natural infrastructure solutions.
None of these were wholly new authorities requiring action from
USACE, so implementation has been mixed. Districts that use ``natural''
solutions have more leeway to do so, but ASBPA hasn't seen a notable
increase in use of natural infrastructure since 2016. ASBPA considers
comprehensive coastal resilience studies to be invaluable and is
pleased that the South Atlantic Coastal Study has been funded and is
underway, and disappointed that the Great Lakes Coastal Resilience
study has not received approval to begin as a new start and is still on
hold.
What else is needed:
Rather than simply encouraging USACE to use or consider natural
infrastructure in place of hard, grey infrastructure, Congress should
set policy on decision-making that will result in natural
infrastructure being the preferred alternative due to its multi-benefit
approach. This means requiring an RSM approach to managing coastal
navigation and restoration projects while beneficially using all
uncontaminated dredged sediment; and reforming the BCR so that the full
scope of benefits of natural infrastructure are included in project
consideration. Additionally USACE's regulatory requirements should
ensure natural solutions are as easy to permit as hard infrastructure.
For example, USACE took a good step in creating a nationwide permit for
living shorelines, but USACE could look at regulatory hurdles to
natural infrastructure and ensure permitting is not easier for a
comparable gray infrastructure project.
A Final Thought on the USACE's Efforts to ``Revolutionize''
Many of the challenges the USACE has in modernizing to meet the
needs of the 21st century--the ability to adaptively manage projects in
the face of climate impacts, expediting project delivery, being
reactive to the high and lows as well as delays in funding by the
Administration and Congress--is not something Congress can directly
fix. These challenges are procedural and cultural that will take years,
if not decades, to fully address. ASBPA has been pleased with General
Todd Semonite's call to ``Revolutionize'' USACE, as well as Director of
Civil Works James Dalton's efforts at implementing procedures to allow
USACE to operate as a risk-informed, not risk-averse institution.
But after Gen. Semonite and Mr. Dalton leave, these efforts will
need to continue. It is incumbent on Congress, and the Transportation &
Infrastructure (T&I) Committee specifically, to provide oversight to
ensure these procedural and cultural changes continue. USACE is an
essential agency as our nation faces the biggest coastal threats in
history, and it needs to be operating efficiently and effectively.
Conclusion
As the T&I Committee reviews the success of recent WRDAs and
develops policies for a 2020 WRDA, ASBPA encourages the committee to
consider how USACE is able to advance coastal projects that have
multiple benefits. USACE has been building beaches for 100 years and
wetlands for 50 years, so the concept of restoring natural
infrastructure with flood risk reduction, ecological, economic and
recreation benefits is not new. But the next step is for USACE to
maximize each of these values for individual projects and within
coastal systems. This will take systemic changes to increase the
beneficial use of dredged material, budgeting changes to ensure the
full value of sediment is calculated and all benefits are included in a
BCR, and on-going oversight to ensure procedural and cultural changes
at USACE proceed.
Finally, the needs of our nation's coastline are too enormous to be
solved with policy changes and authorized projects in WRDA alone. Our
country must make a major investment in infrastructure that includes
dedicated support for coastal resilience and for waterways. From
sediment management to preparing for storms and rising seas, the
challenges of our coastlines and our waterways are linked and must be
solved together. The policy solutions described here--including RSM,
BCR reform and natural infrastructure--all address these challenges.
But to be successful these need significant federal funding and need to
be part of a national infrastructure investment program. ASBPA looks
forward to working with the T&I Committee to address these challenges
in WRDA and in infrastructure legislation.
Thank you for considering our testimony, and we are happy to answer
any questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Brockbank.
We now recognize Dr. F. Martin Ralph.
Welcome.
Mr. Ralph. Good day. Thank you for the opportunity to be
here, Chairman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman and the
committee.
I am here to describe experience we are gaining on bringing
weather forecast information into reservoir operations. It is
an experimental effort. It is being done in very close
collaboration with the Corps of Engineers and with local water
agencies on the west coast.
We have brought scientists together in meteorology, in
hydrology, in biology with civil engineers and water
management, flood control, and the like to explore how this
might work in the future.
Traditionally, forecast information on precipitation has
not been able to be used directly in reservoir operations
because historically, the skill has been extremely low. But one
of the great accomplishments of science in our lifetimes has
been the development of weather prediction that has some skill.
We have come to realize through those studies in the last
several years that certain types of storms that affect the west
coast we now know as atmospheric rivers have some predictive
skill. So I am going to take you to a time a few years ago with
a reservoir in northern California on the Russian River, Lake
Mendocino, and it was December, and a big atmospheric river had
hit, had started to refill the reservoir a bit to where it
should be.
Another one hit a few days later, encroached into the flood
pool, and the possibility was there for another one to come. As
the rules require for this operation, that reservoir, 25,000
acre-feet was released to restore the flood control pool. That
flood control pool was then available if another storm had
come, just as the rules had designed it to be.
As a meteorologist, I would say facing two ARs that had
just hit and another one if it were to hit would be a serious
problem. I think it was a smart move.
However, what happened and nobody could predict this at the
time was the drought began, the worst drought on record in the
area. The reservoir then declined over the next 13 months to
its lowest point in a long time, and that created a bit of an
issue for water supply, not only for the people, but for
agriculture and also for an endangered species there. Salmon
are a serious issue.
There is a biological opinion on this river, and the
agencies that are responsible work very hard to try to keep
that salmon alive.
So the Sonoma Water Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers,
and a group of scientists led by myself and the chief engineer
of Sonoma Water Agency got together a group to explore the
possibility.
Hey, we have seen this atmospheric river phenomena develop
in our science. We think there is predictability there. Is it
possible that there is enough skill there that in that case in
2012 operators could have looked ahead several days and
realized there is no AR coming? Let's save some of that water,
pending the next day's forecast and whether or not there will
be more storms coming enough to be concerned or not.
One of the special situations in this region of the world
is atmospheric rivers are the driver of flood. So from a
weather standpoint, our challenge about looking ahead boils
down to we really do not care about the run-of-the-mill storms.
We care about these atmospheric rivers. There are only a few
each year, and they make or break the water year for much of
the West.
They also can produce very beneficial precipitation in the
case like in 2012, but then if it went too far, it creates a
flood.
All right. So we got this team together to develop this
workplan to decide if we could do a paper study. We had the
Army Corps of Engineers fully represented on the committee, as
well as the operator of the dam for water supply. So the
operators were at the table.
We had scientists from hydrology and meteorology and others
together with NOAA, USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others
who have expertise, and we developed a collaborative framework
and developed a workplan that we agreed upon to proceed over
the next several years to do a paper study, a paper study.
What we discovered in the first 2 or 3 years was that it
looks very promising. So promising, in fact, that we were
requested as a committee to submit a major deviation request.
That was reviewed, approved, and now the reservoir was
operated this last winter under this major deviation very
successfully, a fantastic example of the Corps working well
with its partners and with scientists to develop new
opportunities.
This has now led to additional studies in southern
California, a very different environment, and in northern
California. Each watershed is different. The weather is
different, the climatology is different. The operating
circumstances differ, and we are trying to take a look at this
new method in these other areas in a systematic way to try to
explore the potential of it.
Our committee believes that there is the possibility for
this to be broadly applicable, but we have also come to
recognize that in my own naive, nonhydrologist way, every
reservoir is like a person. It has got its own personality.
Assuming what we find from one is going to apply to every
other one is really not valid. So we are taking and developing
a very systematic approach in close collaboration with water
agencies that have to deliver water to customers and the Army
Corps of Engineers, who often co-operate the reservoir in some
fashion, with our scientists and the ecosystem experts to
understand whether we can bring weather information in in a
more reliable way to support water operations.
[Dr. Ralph's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D., Director, Center for
Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California San Diego
Introduction
Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss
water infrastructure policies and implementation of the Water Resources
Development Act. My name is Marty Ralph and I am the Director of the
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) at University of
California San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps).
I have worked as a weather and water scientist focused on
understanding the physical processes that create extremes in
precipitation ranging from flood to drought, and on advancing
associated observations, predictions, water management and flood
control applications and decision support tools. After 21 years of
experience as a scientist, manager and program manager in NOAA,
performing, leading and funding research aimed at creating practical
impacts on weather prediction skill and user-decision making, I moved
in 2013 to the University of California San Diego/Scripps Institution
of Oceanography to create what is now the ``Center for Western Weather
and Water Extremes.'' I have published over 120 peer-reviewed
scientific articles, and have developed programs on new science and
technology and their application to solving practical problems. I have
led many aspects of research on atmospheric rivers over the last 15
years, and provide input to water managers, and policy makers related
to western weather and water extremes.
A key focus of my work these last several years has been to explore
the potential for use of Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO)
based on current and future atmospheric river prediction skill. I work
closely with water managers, including with the US Army Corps of
Engineers and related experts. A key role is as Co-Chair of the cross-
disciplinary and interagency Steering Committee for the first FIRO
project, at Lake Mendocino, and now also as Co-Chair of similar
committees for two other reservoirs. Recognition: elected Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society, awards from the Department of Commerce
such as for ``For comprehensive flood mitigation efforts in response to
a severely weakened Howard Hansen Dam project with the potential of
catastrophic flooding,'' awards from NOAA and elsewhere. I have a B.S.
in Meteorology from University of Arizona, and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric
Sciences from UCLA.
This testimony is organized into the following brief sections: 1)
What is FIRO? What role do ARs play? What have we learned so far,
primarily from the Lake Mendocino experience? 2) What is happening now
and what is on the near horizon for FIRO in terms of weather,
hydrology, and associated science? 3) Perspectives on the need for
improved predictive skill on time scales of reservoir and downstream
characteristics. Appendix) Regional water agency statements on the
impacts of atmospherics, and FIRO.
1) What is Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO), what role do
atmospheric rivers play and what have we learned thus far?
A group of scientists and engineers from local, state and federal
agencies, including representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, has been developing a proof-of-concept demonstration project
for Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) since 2014. Last
year, the group, the Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee, filed a
request with the Corps to allow a deviation from its established flood
control operating rules. The deviation request was supported by a
Preliminary Viability Assessment, which contained detailed modeling,
analysis and scientific research. The assessment demonstrated that FIRO
can provide water managers the information they need, with adequate
lead time, to selectively retain or release water from reservoirs. The
assessment identified atmospheric river (AR) type storms as the primary
storm type that can cause flooding and provides up to 50% of the
precipitation annually. It showed that there is enough skill in AR
forecasting that it could enable FIRO, and that improved AR predictions
could increase benefits. Based on the research findings and USACE
review of the major deviation request, the request was approved in
November 2018 by the US Army Corps of Engineers' South Pacific
Division.
The major deviation allowed additional water, up to 10% of flood
storage capacity and at the discretion of the operations staff, to be
stored in Lake Mendocino during this winter's rainy season to improve
water supply reliability and environmental conditions in the Russian
River, while continuing to not only ensure but also improve flood
management capacity of the reservoir. The decision would allow the
Corps to use modern weather prediction technology to operate the
reservoir with more flexibility to store more water when no major
storms are forecasted and order releases ahead of major storms when
forecasts indicate the possibility of significant reservoir inflows.
Per the major deviation the reservoir was operated during late 2018
to early 2019 following the FIRO method. Based on the streamflow
forecasts from NWS, on new AR-forecast tools developed by FIRO, and on
a new decision support tool, also developed through FIRO, the reservoir
held over 10,000 acre-feet of extra water through much of the winter. A
clear demonstration of the FIRO concept in the real world.
``The ability to leverage newer technology and knowledge base as it
pertains to weather forecast enhances our ability to safely deliver the
multiple missions at Lake Mendocino,'' said Nick Malasavage, chief of
Operations and Readiness Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District. ``In particular, the steps we are now taking to
further develop and incrementally implement the FIRO concept adds an
additional tool to maintain our primary responsibilities for flood risk
management.''
Under the approved request, a maximum of 3.8 billion gallons
(11,650 acre-feet) of additional water could be stored in the reservoir
between November 1 and February 28, which is enough water to supply
approximately 97,000 people for a year.
Lake Mendocino, located near the city of Ukiah, is operated jointly
by the Corps and Sonoma Water. The Corps manages the flood control
operations at the reservoir, or the water in what is referred to as the
``flood pool.'' Sonoma Water manages the water stored expressly for
water supply, known as the ``conservation pool'' and is also
responsible for maintaining minimum in-stream flows in the Russian
River below Lake Mendocino.
Studies show that about 50 percent of the rainfall and 80 percent
of the floods in the Russian River watershed are due to atmospheric
rivers--long narrow bands of warm, moisture-laden air that carry huge
amounts of water vapor propelled by high winds.
``We know that a majority of our rain each year comes from these
atmospheric rivers,'' said Sonoma Water Chief Engineer and co-chair of
the steering committee Jay Jasperse. ``Because we now have the
technology to better predict the timing and intensity of these storms,
it allows us the opportunity to manage our water supply more
efficiently and maintain flood management capacity in Lake Mendocino.''
A dramatic illustration of the potential benefits of FIRO occurred
in December of 2012 when a large atmospheric river storm filled the
available water supply space in Lake Mendocino and filled about 25,000
acre feet of the flood pool that is normally kept empty to take the
crest off of floods. Operating under the Corps procedures, which
dictate that water in the flood pool be released as soon as possible to
make room for the next storm, dam operators followed the operations
rules and released the water from the flood pool, even though no storms
or flooding was forecasted in the near future. But no additional storms
occurred, and the next winter was the beginning of a severe and
extended drought. If improved forecasts had been available and used in
2012 and atmospheric river storms were not predicted to occur, and
operation rules were more flexible, the water that had been released
could have been put to beneficial uses just as the region entered a
drought.
The FIRO effort that has led to this approval by the Corps is the
result of a highly collaborative effort between engineers, physical
scientists, biologists and forecasters. Sonoma Water and the Corps are
to be commended for their leadership and innovation on FIRO at Lake
Mendocino, which is setting the stage for further exploration of this
promising approach.
``This collaboration will have far-reaching benefits for the
resiliency and reliability of our water supply system in the face of a
changing climate,'' said James Gore, Chair of Sonoma Water's Board of
Directors. ``Improved forecasting provides us with the ability to store
more water and still maintain the flood protection benefits of our
reservoirs. This is another great example of the benefits of a multi-
agency partnership that addresses our most challenging issues.''
The success thus far of the FIRO effort is due in large part to the
formation of the FIRO Steering Committee and the development of its
internal culture and processes which has successfully brought together
groups with often competing missions and interests, but with a common
vision that better water management operations are possible through
cooperation and advances in science and engineering. Additionally, with
the connection and interaction of FIRO Steering Committee members and
staff from the respective organizations who are engaged in the research
and operations aspects of water management, the FIRO effort has
eliminated the gap that can exist between research that investigates
and makes scientific advances and operators who need tools that are
ready for application to real world problems with requisite reliability
and assurance. Research, operations and regulatory perspectives have
blended in every element of the FIRO effort to produce science to
inform policy and bring about improved efficiency in water management
for the simultaneous benefit of flood risk management, water supply and
ecologic concerns.
The Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee consists of
representatives from Sonoma Water (Sonoma County Water Agency), the
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (Scripps), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geologic Survey
(USGS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR). The deviation request was submitted on behalf of
steering committee members from Sonoma Water, Scripps, the Corps, NOAA
and DWR.
2) What is happening now and what is on the near horizon for FIRO in
terms of weather, hydrology, and associated science?
As an atmospheric scientist, I will restrict my comments here to
primarily the implications for weather and streamflow conditions.
The first Full, Viability Assessment (FVA) for FIRO is underway at
Lake Mendocino. A second Major Deviation Request to USACE to operate
the dam following FIRO this coming winter is in preparation. Scientific
developments are underway to improve AR forecasts for the region and to
assess the potential benefits of such improvements. Better observations
offshore and onshore are aiding in understanding how major storms
behave and how their precipitation runs off into the rivers and
reservoir. Computer models for weather and hydrology are being improved
and a decision support tools using that information are being refined.
Two new FIRO efforts have begun on systems that are very different
from Lake Mendocino, and will offer lessons that extend and complement
what Mendocino is teaching us. These include meteorological and
hydrological conditions that differ from coastal northern California.
Fewer storms each year produce more of the precipitation. Mountains are
tall enough to capture some precipitation as snow, which means a delay
in the runoff until it melts, some of it days or even months after the
storm. The watershed is highly urbanized, meaning more of the rain runs
off into rivers than soaks into the ground. Although these differences
with the Russian River may serve to complicate matters, the closer
proximity of Prado Dam to the ocean, relative to Lake Mendocino, allows
flow to move past flood-impact areas and reach the ocean faster. Thus,
forecast requirements will likely be less stringent in terms of lead
times. Maybe 1-2 days shorter. Sierra Nevada reservoirs involve
additional hydrometeorological challenges. These watersheds are high
enough that a large fraction of their area can receive snow. Yet AR
storms are often warm and can melt the snow, thereby adding to flood
potential. Thus, snow prediction, and snow-melt prediction are critical
to FIRO in such areas, and require different meteorological and
hydrological forecast skills and tools, and supporting science.
3) Perspectives on the need for improved predictive skill for
atmospheric rivers to support improvements in water supply
reliability, flood risk mitigation capacity and ecological
benefits through FIRO
The viability of FIRO for a given reservoir hinges on adequate
predictive skill for storms and streamflow conditions that represent
challenges in operations for either flood control or water supply, or
for ecological concerns. In much of the US West, this means atmospheric
rivers. ARs are the storm type that provide much of the annual water
supply in a relatively few storms each cool season, and that can create
flooding when they are too strong and impact an already saturated and
vulnerable watershed.
The FIRO viability assessment at Lake Mendocino has shown that AR
forecasts with 3-5 days lead time are key. Analysis has shown that
current forecast skill is adequate for initial FIRO testing, and that
future enhancements in skill could yield even greater benefits. Current
estimates are 20,000 AF net increase in water supply reliability in
about half the water years, and that additional benefits could accrue
based on better forecasts.
The requirements for better predictions for FIRO boil down to
better AR landfall predictions and of forecasts of how much
precipitation will be created by ARs and whether it falls as rain or
snow (in the case of mountainous watersheds with high terrain). Tools
and methods to improve upon these include:
Better observations of ARs and their precursors over the
ocean and coast
Better weather forecast models tailored to AR and west-
coast precipitation forecasting
Better skill in precipitation and streamflow prediction
Decision support tools tailored to each watershed's needs
Better scientific understanding required to make the
improvements listed above.
Although FIRO has been developed for the West Coast thus far, the
potential exists for it to be useful elsewhere, such as the Great
Plains or eastern U.S where ARs can also cause significant flooding
events such as in Nashville in May 2010 and in the Washington, DC Area
in July 2018. However, the skill of extreme precipitation forecasting
is best in the West Coast because ARs have some valuable predictability
already. In the Great Plains, large thunderstorms, or clusters of
thunderstorms are key to flooding, and yet are much harder to predict
than ARs. Tropical storms and hurricanes are another cause, and they
may have some of the predictability needed, but how that predictability
relates to the lead times that are required by FIRO in those regions
remains to be assessed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
That sounds very promising, and I hope that you develop it
further to help anywhere in the United States eventually.
Thank you, everybody, for your testimony.
We will recognize myself for 5 minutes and the questions
that I have for many. I think we will try to expedite this
since we have been here almost 3 hours.
Mr. Berginnis, this year's floods have devastated
communities across the Nation. How do we help ensure that the
Corps helps to rebuild and how do we build it better?
Do you think the funding is sufficient to do so?
Mr. Berginnis. I do not think the funding is sufficient,
and again, as outlined in our testimony, and it was very
interesting to hear the comments about how we can bring this to
bear on all communities, not just with communities with
authorized projects, and the Corps has so much expertise.
But it is unable physically to go out into communities to
help with planning and doing projects, even projects where a
community might want to do it themselves.
So that is one aspect of it. The other is, you know, I was
reading about a report that came out I think in the last week
or so that used the example of if we use the option of
seawalls, that across the Nation we are looking at about a $400
billion price tag when it comes to dealing with sea level rise.
And the intent of that study was not to say we need
seawalls everywhere, but the intent of that study was to start
getting our arms around the magnitude of the flooding problem
that we face with the future conditions that we are going to be
dealing with.
And so the $100 billion backlog that we talk about is
really small compared to just what we are going to be facing on
our coasts.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Brockbank and Ms. Hill-Gabriel, we
hear more reports of coastal beach closures because of the
algae bloom. What are the ecology and economic consequences of
algae blooms?
What are your recommendations for long-term solutions?
How does it affect communities and tourism and fishing and
the lost revenue?
Mr. Brockbank. Certainly the economics of algae bloom are
devastating to local communities who rely on beach tourism as a
primary source of their economic wellbeing.
ASBPA does not work on water quality issues, but we are
very actively trying to support these communities that have
beach tourism as an economic base.
And so I think whatever the Corps is able to do to ensure
that the water quality is of a sufficient standard to maintain
that base, it is absolutely critical.
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. And thank you for that question.
I think another important factor to think about is the need
to coordinate between local government, State government, and
the Federal Government. There are many things that are outside
of the Army Corps' mission that they do not have control over
that often contributes to the algae blooms.
So looking at where, for example, there are State water
quality issues that need to be addressed that end up having a
confluence with the water management issues that the Army Corps
is responsible for, we have to look at these things
comprehensively.
Almost in every case where we see a massive algal bloom
problem there is not one silver bullet solution. So ensuring
that we bring the right people together to talk about each
different decision maker or entity's responsibility in trying
to address the problem is critically important.
And I just have to share that, you know, I saw Congressman
Mast put up the pictures of the algal bloom in the St. Lucie
Estuary in Florida, and I remember that about 3 years ago I
went when it was particularly bad, and went out there for the
first time--I'd lived in Florida at the time, but not right
there--and I parked my car and I opened the door, and I was
across the street from the water, and I thought, oh, I must
have parked next to a dumpster. I was not parked next to a
dumpster. This is something that, you know, so far away, the
smell just really overcomes you, and it truly is something that
you physically feel in your eyes, and immediately makes it
challenging.
So of course people are not going to want to come to these
destinations that are world-renowned tourist destinations when
that is the impact that they are feeling. And so the economic
damages that occur as a result of that are clear.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, do you find that the agencies don't
always talk to each other? Because when I was in State
government I had to bring them together to talk to each other
and cooperate with each other. But doesn't that sound like it
would be the norm? Should be?
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. I think we wish it would, but that is
certainly always a challenge, is a need for someone to take a
leadership helm and make sure that those people are brought
together to the table at the right time to have the right
discussion, and that everyone is willing and ready to address
their contribution to the problem.
Mrs. Napolitano. Dr. Ralph, one of the sites being
considered by the organization is Prado Dam, which is in my
region. I know that all sites are different, as you explained.
What are the lessons learned from Lake Mendocino and how can
you apply those to other reservoirs like Prado?
Mr. Ralph. One of the calculations that needs to be made
involves how the reservoir is operated. If it is operated such
that it may need 2 or 3 days' lead time, we can do better at
forecasting 2 or 3 days out. If it requires 7 or 10 days, that
is going to be a different story. It is very tough to get these
storms right 7 or 10 days out. So a lot of it depends on the
character of the watershed and the dam itself.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would that require cooperation of the
agencies to be aware of it?
Mr. Ralph. Oh absolutely and we have been very well-
received by agencies wanting to discuss this.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Westerman, you are
recognized.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. For a while, the
witnesses had us outnumbered three to one, but thanks to
Ranking Member Graves, we got it down to two to one, now. And I
want to thank the witnesses for your patience and also for your
very important testimony, for presenting it to the executive
committee of the committee, but more than that, getting it on
record because it is important issues that you have talked
about.
Mr. Innis, you talked about the inland waterways and the
navigation and commerce on those waterways. Can you elaborate a
little bit more on how the river closures have affected
industries that rely on products that move up and down the
river?
Mr. Innis. Sure. This year has been extreme with the
flooding that we have seen. We have seen millions of dollars of
cost to us, and also delays in projects all over our system
because we can't get the products there. And so that has had
major impacts on what we have been able to do, and it has
really caused delays and put more trucks on the road as well as
finding alternative methods to get there, which is not our
preferred method.
You know, and the delays of getting to, let's use St. Paul
as an example, we were almost 3 months delayed getting there
from when we would normally get there, and the cost and impacts
to projects up in that area and further north have been huge
for us. And modernizing the system is going to be critical
because if those are modernized, we can recover quicker from a
flood event to reduce the costs, and that 75/25 split is going
to be crucial to being able to do that.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you for that. Many of you mentioned in
your testimony this concept of natural infrastructure. I heard
words like designing with nature. I thought of the lyrics to a
song that said I fought the law and the law one. You know, at
some point we are going to say, I fought nature and nature won.
And I think we are seeing that in a lot of places now.
So the question to the panel is how is the Corps
implementing provisions from WRDA 2016 and 2018 to consider
natural and nature-based features when studying certain
projects; and as a followup, is the Corps or non-Federal
sponsors, are they acting as barriers to considering natural
and nature-based designs?
Mr. Berginnis. One thing that I will mention is that we do
have some concern that the Corps has not yet done rulemaking
from some of the WRRDA 2014 or also WRDA 2018 related to some
of the natural infrastructure. The Corps initiated some
rulemaking in February 2015 but we've not seen any proposals 4
years later. So by not having the rulemaking, that is
problematic.
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Thank you. I will add that I think the
direction was very clear that the Army Corps should be
considering, or must consider, natural infrastructural
alternatives in projects like flood risk reduction, and yet it
is very infrequent; almost never do we see a natural
infrastructural alternative make it all the way through the
planning process and get the same level of analysis as some of
the more traditional routes for infrastructure.
And I think an issue that a number of folks have mentioned
today is the cost-benefit ratio analysis. It seems to be one
hurdle to being able to fully analyze the benefits. And of
course Secretary James mentioned, himself, that he doesn't
think they are able to fully interpret the benefits that some
of these types of projects provide, or options for projects
provide.
So I definitely think that as we continue to implement
those provisions that the committee has made clear, we need to
look into that more and help them be able to do the right
analysis.
Mr. Brockbank. If I may, I will just be real quick. WRDA
2016, section 1184 required natural features to be considered
in feasibility studies. WRDA 2018, section 1149 allowed for
natural and nature-based features to be included in aquatic
ecosystem and flood risk management projects.
These were provisions that we strongly supported and am
pleased were included, but they weren't requirements to do
natural infrastructure, and so I think we need to change the
framework for how the Corps decides what projects to do rather
than just sort of saying, you know, consider this or you are
allowed to do this. I think there needs to be sort of a
fundamental switch about how the Corps plans its projects
rather than just asking them to consider the project.
Mr. Westerman. In my remaining time, Dr. Ralph, we have
talked a little bit about innovations and using modern
technology. During the flooding in Arkansas I was out on the
river a lot and met a gentleman in his local community. He had
developed a sensor that was relatively low-cost, you could put
it on a metal fence post. He was putting these out on private
property and they were giving real-time water level
measurements in one hundredth of an inch increments, and you
can do all kinds of neat stuff with that kind of data, and he
developed this for the irrigation industry.
And I said, that's pretty cool technology, have you talked
to the Corps or anybody about using this for monitoring river
levels. And he said, you know, the Corps is not interested in
talking to somebody like me about new technology.
But do you see a hinderance with the Corps in accepting new
technology and getting out on the cutting edge of things that
could be very beneficial in monitoring current conditions and
changing conditions?
Mr. Ralph. Actually my experience is just the opposite.
They have been very open to exploring new approaches. We work
directly with the research side of the Corps, which is the
Engineer Research and Development Center is the lead of that,
and we are actively engaged in testing new methods with them.
Mr. Westerman. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hill-Gabriel, it is great to have you here with us this
afternoon. As you know, I feel like sometimes I sound like a
broken record because all I talk about is the situation that we
have in my district, the Everglades is part of my district, and
we have been working on Everglades restoration now for two
decades. And I just feel like we have so much to do, and no one
seems to have a clear answer on what are the much necessary
steps to avoid the catastrophe that we saw last summer, and to
protect our ecosystem, which is dying, and also the livelihood
of so many, millions, of Floridians that depend on this
ecosystem for water quality and their livelihood, really.
So from your perspective, from all the work that you have
done, what is it that we can do to speed up the restoration
process right now?
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think the first thing is, again, a common theme we have
heard today, is that for all the success this committee has had
in getting new projects authorized, we need help working with
colleagues in the Appropriations Committee to make sure those
newly authorized projects get funded.
The amount of progress that has been able to be made by
having the ability to authorize new projects get back on a
regular cycle is clear. When you have that level of certainty
it really makes a difference because it filters all the way
back down to beginning new planning studies, and every step in
the process it takes to bring a project up to Congress.
When the funding is uncertain, and we have seen the Army
Corps funding at times can go up and down, it makes it very
difficult not only for the Corps to plan ahead with how much
progress can be made in any given year, but it also makes it
difficult for the non-Federal sponsor to be able to budget
accordingly.
Where we have seen a lot of progress in the Everglades has
been when the non-Federal sponsor has taken the lead and said,
well, we will make sure we have the funding in place. So if we
are able to get that $200 million in place this fiscal year and
future fiscal years, that will make progress happen much, much
faster.
And as the chairwoman noted in her opening remarks,
additional appropriations challenges, like limiting the number
of New Starts, can also be a barrier to making progress, not
only on the Everglades but on all of the projects that we are
talking about here today.
The last thing I will add is I think that when we have
these massive long-term programs, it is easy to find issues
along the way that can divert us off of the course of getting
projects done and getting the next projects ready. And so
really maintaining that focus and keeping our eye on what the
ultimate goal is, and continuing progress is key.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Well, I was on a mission when I
started in January requesting that funding for the Everglades
and testified in front of the Appropriations Committee
requesting those $200 million. I just worry that now that it
has been approved, that the $200 million will help complete
some of the planning, not necessarily complete the project. So
it will delay the restoration efforts. So that is a concern of
mine.
Another question that I wanted to ask you, you spoke about
the marshy areas within the lake that could help in filtering
some of the toxicity of the water. Can you talk a little bit
about that and just explain what else we can be doing to just
improve the overwhelming toxicity that we find in the water
currently on Lake Okeechobee.
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. That's right. Often we talk about Lake
Okeechobee in terms of the source of these discharges that go
out to coastal estuaries and cause toxic algal blooms, but the
lake, itself, actually has incredibly important habitat. And
even if you are not concerned with birds or other wildlife that
rely on the lake, it also contains when it is healthy up to
150,000 acres of marsh that acts as a natural filtration
system. So when we hold lake levels too high for too long, or
too low for too long, some of that marsh dies out and so the
natural water quality treatment is no longer there.
And to put it in perspective, the State of Florida south of
Lake Okeechobee has built about 65,000 acres of manmade
treatment marshes because we found that despite every
technology attempted, those treatment marshes were the best way
to actually remove the nutrients, that nature won. We couldn't
figure out a better option other than nature, replicating
nature. So building manmade marshes costs the State over $2
billion, but meanwhile you have twice that amount in Lake
Okeechobee itself if you just keep the lake healthy.
So it is important to also consider the habitat on the
lake, itself, in the equation of trying to solve those water
quality problems.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much. I have run out of
time, but maybe I will ask you some questions after. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is for Mr. Waters, and obviously we have
demonstrated just how bad the flooding has been--some of the
worst on record. Can you expand a little bit, and I apologize
for missing all of the witnesses' opening testimony--I had
another commitment--but can you expand a little bit on how this
has affected the livelihood of our communities and our farmers
and, you know, all of our area, the businesses throughout? And
you can focus specifically on the State of Missouri because it
is the same whether it is Nebraska or Iowa or Kansas or farther
downstream on the Mississippi.
Mr. Waters. It has been incredible, this event. Number one,
I sat on the highway commission in Missouri and at one point we
had over 407 roads closed due to the flooding. Some of those
were major interstate highways. I-29 that runs up through
Missouri and Iowa was closed for numerous days. That alone is a
huge economic impact.
The farmland that was flooded, in Missouri one-third of the
crop produced in the State is produced in the 100-year flood
plain. We have got a massive amount of that flood plain under
water now. That is going to have a huge impact on the State's
economy because agriculture is the number one industry in the
State, and it is not going to end this year because, as I
mentioned in my testimony, those levees are going to sit open.
The Corps is saying that they probably won't get the levees
repaired for 2 years. I think it is probably more like 3 to 5
years.
And so this thing is going to drag on a long time, and it
just trickles through the whole economy of the State. Not just
the State, but when you put Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska in there,
the whole Midwest, it really will affect food production and
trickle through the United States economy. I really believe
that.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Can you, just to change gears for
just a little bit real briefly, talk to me a little bit about
realignment and setbacks when it comes to the levees and how
that is going to impact property owners and some of that
farmland?
Mr. Waters. Sure, I will talk about a levee breach on my
property. The hole that was created when the water came over
the levee and breached, is 51 feet deep. So filling that whole
would be very difficult, so what we feel like we are going to
have a realignment and ring that hole. So that can be expensive
as well, but some of those realignments are, you know, they are
necessary; there is no other way to fix them.
As we heard General Spellmon say this morning, just in the
levees they have been able to look at, $1.9 billion in levee
repairs. That is----
Mr. Graves of Missouri. That is a preliminary estimate.
Mr. Waters [continuing]. Just a tip of just a few of the
levees that they have, you know, had a chance to get in and
look at. That number is going to continue to increase.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you Mr. Graves. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies for my
absence here, multiple things at one time, so I appreciate
Madam Chair having this hearing and this panel for being here.
I wanted to zero in on the issues revolving around Oroville
Dam in northern California which suffered a spillway breakage a
little over 2 years ago, and since then has been rebuilt and is
well functioning.
The reconstruction of it, which, you know, we understand
there are certain issues with how lake levels have to be
maintained on that, but indeed, for 2 years the lake level of
Lake Oroville was kept very low in phase with this
construction, and it was a risk-averse strategy, and again, it
is understandable part of it here, but I think the net effect
was the local economic issues faced with that, and I will be
addressing Mr. Ralph with a question on that here in a moment,
it hurt the local economy on the recreational side and tourism
side, as well as the water supply issues for the State of
California.
The State has yet--does not contribute any real significant
funding to Oroville to compensate for county's responsibility
to maintain roads, law enforcement, fire, et cetera. So the
county, Butte County, calculates approximately $10 million a
year of cost to them for providing services that they have
little authority to be part of.
So with that, the dam--two economic problems that we need
help with. We can fix through the FERC relicensing process and
see that DWR is a bigger partner going forward on what its
costs of the dam to the community are; and then also looking at
adding in more, directing to Mr. Ralph, looking at the risk and
economic impacts when we do this, the forecasting model for how
the lake level is maintained. Again, it is a different
situation when the spillway is being repaired. I thought it was
a little conservative, but--on low levels--but nonetheless, we
are through that and we have a great water year this year,
2019.
So Mr. Ralph, I understand you are working on a forecast
model with the State in the hope of updating the 1970s era Army
Corps manual for operations of Lake Oroville as well as New
Bullards Bar nearby--they kind of work together. Do you expect
this update to be completed at what point?
Mr. Ralph. We are working with the Yuba Water Agency and
California Department of Water Resources in a combined effort
on the Yuba and Feather that will involve both New Bullards Bar
and Oroville. We are in the phase now of beginning to develop
the workplan to lay out what is needed in terms of our analysis
and science to address the issues. We have a target timeline
such that our report will generate the inputs into a potential
water control manual update in the order of 3 years or so from
now.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, when was this first started or proposed?
Mr. Ralph. We just began the work together in May.
Mr. LaMalfa. Of proposing the idea of changing the manual
or----
Mr. Ralph. I believe that Yuba Water Agency has already
been envisioning a change in the water manual associated with a
revision to their release facilities from New Bullards Bar, so
we are working with them very closely and coordinating the
timelines. Our committee includes a representative for Oroville
Dam from DWR.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, so basically it is a 3-year process from
initiating, being this year, is what you are hoping for?
Mr. Ralph. Right. It has been a 5-year process on Lake
Mendocino and we are accelerating that as we learn along the
way.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, kind of use that model as a way to move a
little quicker on this one, hopefully, right?
Mr. Ralph. Right, we are learning things we don't have to
reinvent, but there are new challenges on Oroville, in
particular the High Sierra in the snowpack is a big technical
issue and we have got to address that.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I have noticed, I have looked at a lot of
numbers on that where there, you know, with a big snowpack up
there, there is a lot of fear about that snowpack melting all
at once, but every number I ever watched on CFS input has been
pretty conservative, I mean pretty low numbers. It hasn't been
the rush of water coming into the lake. I know that farther
down, more in central California, those rivers really rage when
snow melt happens, but up in our area it seems it is not as big
of a concern, so when I watch how they are managing lake level,
it seems like there might just be a little bit of overemphasis
on that.
So I hope as you are modeling this that--what kind of
improvements do you think we can allow to keep the lake fuller
longer into the year so that we have that water supply issue
for the rest of the State as well as the local economic and
tourist issues? Is there a way to aggressively look at this
model and keep more water at a longer period and still have the
margin of safety that is reasonable?
Mr. Ralph. Yes, our effort is going to look both at
increase in water supply reliability in a way as you are
envisioning there, but also flood control mitigation capacity
through prereleases. This is aligned with the new release
structure that New Bullards Bar is envisioning that will allow
them to make releases at a lower water level in the reservoir.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, because when I noticed----
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. At Oroville we have a lot of
capacity through the Hyatt Powerplant to maintain, and then the
spillway itself is designed for a lot of ability to spill
safely within the river system, so it looks to me like we can
certainly be a little more aggressive on keeping the lake full
longer and still have that margin of safety. So please look
into that, and I will yield back, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. We are going to go
into a second round, very brief, but to the panel, all of you,
why is it important that Congress continue to enact WRDA?
Mr. Waters. Well, I would just say we have got a lot of
problems out there, Madam Chairman. We have got flood control
structure all over the country that needs improvements, needs
to be put back where it has been damaged, there are problems
across this whole country, and as I said in my testimony, wake
up in the morning, turn the TV on, you will see it flooding
somewhere in the country nearly every day.
Mr. Berginnis. I very much agree with Tom in terms of the
problem, and when you also add sea level rise, it is something
that will be among the national priorities I think we are
dealing with in this century. We need to have the full
expertise and the resources of the Corps of Engineers, but also
take a broader flood plain management approach that includes
flood control. Thank you.
Mr. Innis. The biggest thing that we have seen is the
impact of WRDA of being hitting every 2 years. I mean the
impact that we have seen to the inland waterway system has been
huge. We have started to see projects completed and move
forward, and having that continue is going to be critical so
that we can get these 15 priority projects done, and the cost
share will be the next thing to hurdle. Thank you.
Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Water is life's most critical element,
and I think as the change in climate means we are going to see
stronger storms, sea level rise, flooding in some places and
drought in others. There is probably no more important issue
than advancing water infrastructure.
Mr. Brockbank. The Army Corps of Engineers is our Nation's
most critical agency in addressing many of the water
challenges, but certainly the coastal challenges we face, and
they need to have the full tools at their disposal and have the
authorization to implement projects, and that is done by WRDA
every 2 years.
Mr. Ralph. I see WRDA as providing a venue for dialogue
about innovation and new approaches that could be helpful in
the long term.
Mrs. Napolitano. There seems to be the topic for everybody
that we need WRDA, we need the resources and we need your
expertise to be able to make sure that we address all the
issues, and I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Westerman,
for his comment.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really look
forward to working with you and the committee on getting
another WRDA in 2020. It is something we definitely need to do.
Your testimony is extremely valuable in helping us prepare for
that, and I would like to yield the rest of my time to the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Graves.
Mrs. Napolitano. He has a full 5 minutes. I recognize Mr.
Graves.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just real quick, I was reading through your testimony, Mr.
Waters, and you talk about the long- and short-term needs
necessary to get folks back on their feet and prevent future
events. So from your perspective, can you go into a little bit
more depth on how the Corps is going to balance, you know,
different purposes like fish and wildlife, obviously to the
detriment of flood control in many cases, but that as well as,
you know, some of the potential proposed solutions that have
been offered up, obviously from your perspective?
Mr. Waters. Well, currently the Corps is trying to balance
eight authorized purposes with the Missouri River flood control
system, and they are trying to balance all of those equally.
Well, they are not equal. This system was built for flood
control, and so we have to set a priority on flood control. And
when we do that we are not tossing away the other authorized
purposes.
When the system was built for flood control, all these
other purposes and all these other benefits of a system came
about. So they will still be there, but to manage this system,
to protect lives and property, it has to be managed for flood
control. And so we have got to get back to that, and I think
one of the first places that we can start is with the dike
notching that I talked about. If we can get these dikes fixed
so the water flows downstream. Right now with all the notched
dikes, as the water comes down the river it hits those dikes
and swirls; and so it is swirling its way down the stream.
If you look at the Illinois and the Ohio River, those
riverbanks are straight and smooth and the water flows right
down the river. But we have been doing some of these, I call
them experiments, these projects that we have done have damaged
the flood control system, and we are seeing results of it now.
We are seeing more flooding more often.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Graves of Louisiana.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank all of you for being here today and
providing your input. We talked in the first panel a little bit
about the backlog of the Corps of Engineers, and I want to
state for the record, unequivocally, that I could not more
disagree with Secretary James' comment that the backlog only
consists of projects that have been partially funded. Congress
doesn't earmark projects. I couldn't disagree more with the way
that he categorized that. If a project has been authorized by
this committee, by this Congress, it is a backlog project,
period. There is a way to take projects out of the
authorization process through a deauthorization. If a project
is authorized, it is an authorized project and it is part of
the backlog, period.
But moving on, you all have experience in water resource
projects in some degree. Let me ask you, just show of hands,
how many of you are satisfied or think that the existing water
resources project development and delivery process is adequate
or corresponds with the urgency of the projects that you have
worked on.
Madam Chair, I just want to let the record reflect that no
one's hand is up right now.
So you, I'm guessing, have worked on water resource
projects outside of this Corps of Engineers confine, and look,
I am not beating up on an individual. It is a process. I think
the organizational structure is flawed. Congress has some
culpability. I do think you have people in the agencies and OMB
that have culpability.
But looking across your entire portfolio of experience, can
you talk about giving you a magic wand, what are some of the
things that you would change based on how you have seen project
development and project implementation occur working with a
county, a parish, a State or a not-for-profit or other groups.
And Ms. Hill-Gabriel, feel free to throw some shout-outs for
Louisiana.
Madam Chair, for the record, I want to make mention of a
National Geographic article that said that the Florida
Everglades was a petting zoo compared to the ecological
productivity of coastal Louisiana. I would never say those
things, I am just quoting someone else, but regardless, if I
could get your all's feedback on that question I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Waters. Well, I would just say there is a lot of
bureaucracy involved in every project, even some--you know, I
have been talking about levee repairs, but some of those repair
projects drag on for a very long time as you deal with
regulations and rules within the Corps of Engineers, and even
beyond the Corps. You know, we have to do environmental
studies, we have to gather easements and property rights, so
there is so much bureaucracy and the timetable just for putting
one levee back together is extremely long and so that is why--
--
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But Mr. Waters----
Mr. Waters [continuing]. I said maybe 3 to 5 years to get
it done.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Is there a project
that you have worked on outside of this Corps of Engineers
Federal confine that you said, you know what, that worked.
Mr. Waters. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Which one? Can you give----
Mr. Waters. Through the NRCS. You know, we have projects
and their water----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Another Federal agency?
Mr. Waters. Yes, but as a farmer I can go to the NRCS, they
can design my project and give me the plans and then I can go
outside and find my own contractor to build it and then get
reimbursed for that for the cost share, whatever. So allowing
me to do the contracting and taking care of a lot of that stuff
that the Corps does on the Corps water project saves a
tremendous amount of money.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And Madam Chair, going back to the
dialogue we had with Secretary James earlier, this 1043 process
largely, well to some degree, provides for that. The Corps
wrote 149 pages of guidance so I haven't had a chance to go
through it all, but I am not sure that it is efficient as NRCS,
but it is designed to mimic that process where you can use the
efficiencies of your own contracting and things along those
lines. And so I do think making sure that we prevent that
authorization from expiring is very important.
Mrs. Napolitano. When you are finished reading it, let us
know.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. [Laughter].
Yes, ma'am, I will send you the CliffsNotes. Any others
care to comment on this?
Mr. Berginnis. So another thing on adequacy, I think, is
that, and Derek had mentioned this earlier, is that for natural
infrastructure, or for nonstructural, the approach is
incremental and it is as if the sponsor desires it as opposed
to being an automatic part of project development or repair.
For example, in Public Law 84-99, why isn't it that we don't,
as a nation, have a rapid buy-out program for people that want
to just get the heck out of harm's way.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Or better yet, why don't we look
at the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery
Program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program, the Corps of Engineers CG program,
and instead of prohibiting each one of these from being able to
comingle or work together, actually encouraging them to do so
to where we can achieve some of these greater objectives like
where it makes sense buy-out, where it makes sense comingle
funds and address the backlog of projects, and others.
Certainly a lot of efficiencies that I think we could
incorporate, but we are going to address the rest of that
through questions for the record, but I want to thank you,
again, for being here today.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. LaMalfa for a
short one.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you for another round here; try and do
it half-time.
Coming back to Mr. Ralph since we have a little time. I
just wanted to follow up on some of his Lake Oroville thoughts
here. What kind of improvements do you think in the manual we
can achieve that will allow us to keep more water in longer,
especially in the summer months, so we have better recreation
and tourism as well as what it means for agriculture in the
southern part of the State and et cetera?
Mr. Ralph. Not being an expert on the water control manual
process, I am an atmospheric scientist, I would like to get
back to you on that if possible.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, then I will follow up. Again, we have the
ability for a mass amount of water to flow through the
powerhouse and the newly rebuilt spillway. The spillway is
large enough to overwhelm the levee system down below with its
capacity.
So how far out do you think a forecast model could project
when we would need to start releasing water to stay within that
safe range of a full lake in the winter months but not too full
for--so we have an orderly release but still, again, gearing
towards a full lake at the end of the springtime? And how might
that compare to the standard that DWR is already able to use
working with Army Corps?
Mr. Ralph. I can't tell you numbers off the top of my head,
but I can say that factors that come into play are how fast
water can be released from the reservoir, what amount of water
needs to be released, what the conveyance system is downstream,
how far it needs to go, and each reservoir has its own
particulars of that, and that is what our workplan has
developed, is intending to quantify very carefully.
In the case of Lake Mendocino, for example, the number we
came up with as a committee was 10,000 acre-feet of additional
water supply reliability. Lake Mendocino is one-tenth the size
of New Bullards Bar; it is a fraction of Oroville. And based on
the release structure and the rates that have been allowable,
it would take about 2 days to release that water. And then
Guerneville is a town downstream that is flood prone. It would
take about 1 to 3 days for that back edge of that surge of
water to get past Guerneville. So you add the 2 days to get the
water out of the dam, up to 3 days to get out of the way, that
is 5 days. That gives us our lead-time requirement for adequate
forecast skill so as to enable FIRO to work on Lake Mendocino.
So we will have to go through those calculations very carefully
with regards to the system.
Mr. LaMalfa. Makes perfect sense. You are either limited by
the size of the spillway or the system below the levee as river
to, in this case, it is the river structure that is going to
limit how much can go without unneeded damage. So I will be
interested to see how a little more modernized look at what the
snowpack release would be, so what is incoming to the lake is
more realistic instead of the, you know, the more great level
of concern maybe unneeded on that.
So with that, I will yield back and please keep me apprised
as you are going along on that, we are very interested in that
work as it unfolds. So thank you for that, and I yield back,
Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them by
members of this committee in writing. I also ask unanimous
consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any
additional comments, information submitted by Members or the
witnesses, to be included in the record of today's hearing. So
without objection--no objection--so ordered.
I would like to thank--Secretary James left but he was here
for a good portion of your testimony, and I thank him for that.
And General Spellmon, thank you very much for staying. I
recognize your presence and am thankful for it. And to the
witnesses, thank you for your patience and we thank you for
your testimony and I bid you good-bye. The subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am pleased that the Chairwoman is holding this hearing today, as
it allows us to review the Corps' implementation of the most recent
Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA), enacted in 2014, 2016, and
2018.
On Monday, I held a bi-partisan roundtable discussion in my
district to tackle the critical issues of flooding, flood prevention,
and flood control. Federal, state, regional, and local stakeholders
participated in a lively discussion. During the Roundtable, it was
explained how $100 billion in flood damage was prevented by spending
$2-$3 billion annually on a flood control system. It was clear that
issues of flooding, flood prevention, and flood control must be
addressed regionally using cross-functional teams with stakeholders at
all levels of government, working together to protect Americans.
I am eager to hear from the Administration officials on the first
panel to find out what is currently being done, as well as their
initiatives to address flood related issues. I am also eager to hear
from the stakeholders serving on the second panel today about the
challenges faced and potential solutions. My interests are specific to
how we, as a legislative body, can address flood damage prevention,
which can save lives and millions of dollars. Perhaps the sharing of
technology can be an avenue to guide drivers away from flooded areas
and roads.
My district is facing economic growth. With that growth stirs
development of rural areas, which may have served as natural flood
barriers. Recently, my district is experiencing increased flooding. I
am dedicated to addressing these issues on a short and long-term basis.
With this hearing, I join all the efforts to meaningfully address
the nation's critical concerns surrounding flooding, flood damage
prevention and flood control.
Thank you. I yield back.
Letter of July 9, 2019, from Doug Wheeler, President & CEO, Florida
Ports Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
July 9, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
RE: Water Resource Development Acts
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Graves
and Ranking Member Westerman:
The Florida Ports Council represents Florida's network of 15
deepwater seaports. Seaports are one of the state's greatest economic
assets, positively affecting every region and every resident. Whether
moving over a hundred million tons of cargo annually or millions of
cruise passengers, Florida's seaports generate and support a vast array
of commerce. These seaports are the gateway for shipment of goods into
and out of Florida and link our state to vital international markets.
Our seaports have a $117.6 billion economic impact on the state and
account for more than 900,000 direct and indirect jobs.
The bi-partisan efforts of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee over the past several years have had a
significant impact on seaports in Florida, as well as the entire
nation. Starting with WRRDA 2014, the Committee made significant
reforms to a stagnant and difficult navigational harbor construction
and maintenance process. Florida was finally able to enter into a
partnership with federal agencies to move forward on projects at all of
our major seaport harbors.
Florida is the only state with navigational harbors bordering two
major shipping lanes--the Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean. The Committee's
efforts have enabled Florida to deepen the harbors at Canaveral,
Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa. In addition, the Harbor Maintenance
Funds directed by the Committee continue to allow for navigational
maintenance at all of Florida's seaports and our inland navigational
rivers throughout Florida. These reform efforts have also allowed the
Army Corps to repair navigational and water issues at Milepoint in
Jacksonville, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan that
includes vital water projects around Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades.
But, as you all know, the work is not done. The navigational
deepening project at Port Everglades in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida has
experienced well over 20 years of reviews and discussions. That port is
a vital fuel and cargo seaport for Florida's growing population, and
issues must be resolved to allow that project to move forward.
PortMiami will need additional navigational deepening to allow for
additional larger cargo vessels to safely transit and offload at the
port. And, even absent navigational hazards caused by hurricanes,
Florida has ongoing maintenance and operations needs at all of our
harbors. We also continue to work with Congress and the Administration
to ensure that adequate funds are provided to congressionally approved
projects. We fully support the efforts of this Committee to ensure that
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is used for its intended purpose--
maintaining the country's commercial harbors.
Finally, we would like to offer our assistance and services to the
Committee to hold on-site hearings at any of our seaports on the Gulf
or Atlantic. We can provide the Committee and staff with port and
navigational tours of Army Corps operations at our seaports, as well as
committee hearing space for any necessary discussions with port
administration, federal agency, and private sector maritime businesses.
Again, we applaud the bi-partisan efforts the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee has undertaken on WRDA legislation. We are
committed to providing any assistance the Committee might need on
future legislative efforts.
Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of this nation's
seaports.
Sincerely,
Doug Wheeler
President & CEO, Florida Ports Council
Letter of July 10, 2019, from Nicole Vasilaros, Senior Vice President
of Government Relations and Legal Affairs, National Marine
Manufacturers Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F.
Napolitano
Wednesday, July 10, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairwoman
Napolitano, and Ranking Member Westerman:
On behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA),
I thank you for convening the ``Water Resources Development Acts:
Status of Implementation And Assessing Future Needs'' hearing. As your
subcommittee and the full committee the continues work to reauthorize
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), NMMA encourages your
consideration of the integral role this legislation plays in creating
safe, reliable access for recreational boaters and in supporting the
continued economic growth of the U.S. recreational marine industry.
By way of background, NMMA is the leading recreational marine trade
association in North America, representing nearly 1,300 boat, marine
engine, and accessory manufacturers. Recreational boating is a
significant contributor to the U.S. economy, generating $170.3 billion
in annual economic impact that supports more than 35,000 businesses and
691,000 jobs. Additionally, the outdoor recreation economy as a whole--
which is driven by boating and fishing and includes RVing, guided
tours, and motorcycling and ATVing--accounts for 2.2 percent of U.S.
GDP, $734 billion in gross economic output, and 4.5 million jobs. In
terms of GDP, outdoor recreation is larger than mining, utilities, and
chemical products manufacturing.
Outdoor recreation is a substantial and rapidly increasing part of
the U.S. economy. For our industry--and the entire U.S. economy--to
continue to grow, it is essential that port maintenance and dredging
projects are sufficiently funded. Additionally, adequate funding will
help create jobs in coastal and inland waterway communities, improve
access for water-based recreational activities, and make conditions
safer for the recreational boating and angling communities.
First and foremost, full utilization of Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) revenue for harbor maintenance activities is essential. The
HMTF was created to ensure that our nation's harbors would always be
properly dredged and fully operational, yet much of the fund's annually
collected revenue does not make its way back to where it was originally
intended and is desperately needed. In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) estimates that full channels at the nation's 59
busiest ports are available less than 35 percent of the time--and the
conditions of small and emerging harbors are far worse. The result of
insufficient funding for maintenance and dredging projects is the
deterioration of our nation's ports, harbors, and waterways, which
support thousands of jobs and commercial and recreational economic
development nationwide.
There are sufficient funds in the HMTF to meet the maintenance
dredging needs of all federally-authorized ports. Full utilization of
the fund would provide the necessary funding to enable the Corps to
dredge all federal harbors to their constructed widths and depths.
Improperly dredged channels exacerbate user conflict in our busy ports
and harbors, impacting safety and important access points for
recreational boaters as well.
NMMA also encourages the committee to consider reforming the Corps'
dredging project prioritization process to accurately account for the
economic benefits of investing in projects that facilitate recreational
use. Under the current process, the Corps give priority to coastal
harbors and inland waterways with the most commercial traffic, while
simultaneously providing priority for maintenance of channels at small
ports that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, or
public transportation benefits. A recent study found that in 2017,
Michigan's ports and harbors produced $19.7 billion in economic impact,
and of that amount, water-based tourism and recreation economic impacts
were nearly four times the size of commercial economic impacts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Magnini, V., Boik, W., Crotts, J. (2018). The Economic and
Fiscal Impacts of Michigan's Ports and Harbors. Institute for Service
Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This flawed system fails to properly account for the value created
by access for recreational activities--effectively putting boaters and
the recreational boating industry's $170.3 billion annual economic
activity at a disadvantage. Small recreation-based shallow draft
harbors are critical access points for marinas and coastal communities
where businesses and local communities depend on marine recreation-
based economic activity. Additionally, without sufficient dredging in
these areas, some recreational boaters are forced to use high traffic
commercial channels, which can lead to potential user conflicts and
safety concerns.
The prioritization process should be amended to account for the
economic impacts directly tied to investing in recreational-based
projects by ensuring that a percentage of existing available funds are
allocated for three different categories: High-Tonnage, Low-Tonnage,
and Commercial or Recreational ports. In addition, increases in social,
cultural, and environmental benefits should be considered in the
allocation of the three funding categories where appropriate.
Furthermore, NMMA recommends that the committee direct the Corps to
study alternative and recyclable solutions for disposal of dredged
materials, thereby forgoing the continued traditional landfill disposal
of dredged material and delivering multiple economic and environmental
benefits to local economies. Due to the naturally occurring process of
sedimentation, overtime, rivers, lakes, harbors, and bays can become
filled with debris, sand, mud, silt, and other materials that reduce
waterway depths, making them difficult to navigate and posing
environmental and safety hazards. Proper dredging of these sediment
materials plays a critical role in maintaining clean and healthy
waterways for local ecosystems and providing access to the recreational
boating and angling communities. The Corps estimates that hundreds of
millions of cubic yards of dredged materials need to be excavated each
year to keep the nation's waterways open for commercial and
recreational use. Exploring options to increase the use of alternative
and recyclable solutions will facilitate new opportunities to more
efficiently and sustainably deliver economic, environmental, and
societal benefits through the disposal of dredged materials.
The federal government is responsible for maintaining our nation's
ports, harbors, and waterways. Applying the full balance of the HMTF to
harbor maintenance projects will ensure the fees collected in the fund
are not diverted from critical dredging projects but used to deliver an
economic boost to the U.S. commercial and recreational boating
industries that depend on well maintained waterways. NMMA appreciates
your consideration and stands ready to assist you and the committee
throughout this important endeavor.
Sincerely,
Nicole Vasilaros
Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legal Affairs,
National Marine Manufacturers Association
Article, ``Breached Levee Sucks in Barges in Alexander County,
Highlighting Need for Repairs, Officials Say,'' by Gabriel Neeley-
Streit, The Southern, July 3, 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Mike Bost
MILLER CITY--Overnight Wednesday, six connected barges came loose
from their tugboat and were sucked through the breach in the Len Small
levee in Alexander County.
The current pushed the barges out over flooded farmland near Miller
City, said Alexander County Engineer Jeff Denny, where they came to
rest apparently after colliding with an irrigation system.
Two similar accidents had been narrowly avoided in the past month,
Denny said, because those tugboats had engines strong enough to escape
the water flowing into the \3/4\-mile-wide hole in the levee.
This time, no such luck.
There were no injuries nor damage to barges, which were all empty,
said Kent Furlong, owner of Hines Furlong Line, the barge company.
However, the barges appear to have taken out power lines in their
path across the flooded fields, Denny said.
As Hines Furlong worked to remove the vessels on Wednesday, county
leaders said the incident is a reminder of the need to fix the levee,
which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has ignored for several years.
The Len Small Levee is located between Mississippi River mile
marker 21 and mile marker 35 in far southern Alexander County, near an
area of farmland known as Dogtooth Bend.
It has failed repeatedly over the last decade. In January 2011,
flooding left ``a 5,000-foot breach,'' according to Professor Kenneth
Olson, of the University of Illinois.
The levee was repaired that year by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, working together with local farmers, only to breach again in
a different location in 2016.
At that time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declined to fix the
hole, saying the economic losses on the flooded land were not great
enough to justify the projected $16 million cost of fixing the levee.
Instead, the federal agency opted for a stopgap, Denny said, twice
laying thousands of pounds of rock, known as rip-rap, to strengthen the
bottom of the breached area and the levee walls, in order to prevent
further erosion.
But with the prolonged flooding of 2019, residents of the area
report the \3/4\-mile-hole in the levee continues to grow.
``I would love to know how many millions they've spent, and now
we're pretty much back to square one,'' Denny said.
The true extent of this year's damage won't be clear until
floodwaters recede from the estimated 25,000 acres of farmland flooded
because of the failing levee, Denny said.
But regardless, local officials will continue to make the same
request, Denny said: fill the hole.
``We are looking at the consequences of federal policy failing to
reflect the critical role that levees play beyond flood prevention,
such as maintaining safe commercial navigation. This makes no sense and
it's costing Southern Illinois dearly,'' said U.S. Rep. Mike Bost on
Wednesday.
To help the levee get patched, Bost introduced a provision in the
Water Resources Development Act, approved by the U.S. House last
September, that allows local sponsors to pay the difference when the
costs of a levee repair are deemed to be financially greater than the
flood protection benefits.
However, the provision's implementation on the Len Small has been
stalled by differences in the legal interpretation of the law between
the congressional lawyers who wrote it and the Corps of Engineers,
Denny said.
``The Corps understands it to mean local entities can make up the
difference only with cash contributions,'' Denny said, which would
require Alexander County to put up over $3 million on the $16 million
job. ``But the intention of the law was to allow us to pay with work in
kind.''
In the past, when the Corps repaired the levee, the county was
asked to cover 20% of project costs, Denny said, and did so via work in
kind, with many farmers giving their time and equipment to help with
construction.
In the 2011 repairs, local farmers did about 50% of the work, he
estimated.
Alexander County residents hoped to bear a greater burden of labor,
under Bost's proposal, to get the USACE to sign on to the new repairs.
But for now that possibility remains a ``back and forth''
discussion at the federal level, Denny said, and no USACE work is
expected on the levee.
The Corps of Engineers did not respond Wednesday to questions about
its position on the levee.
Meanwhile, the flood fight continues in the nearby villages of East
Cape Girardeau and McClure.
On Wednesday, the Illinois Department of Transportation's announced
the closure of Illinois 146, which runs west from East Cape to Cape
Girardeau, over the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.
The road, which is covered by 6 or more inches of water in spots,
had been closed to low vehicles, but open to trucks and SUV's,
according to Jerry Held, Alexander County Emergency Management Agency
assistant coordinator.
Now, only emergency vehicles and government vehicles will be
allowed access, Held said.
Sandbagging continues in the communities of East Cape and McClure,
and residents of East Cape are still advised to prepare for voluntary
evacuation if necessary.
From Springfield, Gov. J.B. Pritzker sent a letter to U.S.
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on Wednesday asking him to issue a
disaster declaration for Illinois farmers. The declaration would make
new federal resources available to those whose planting season was
affected by flooding and heavy rainfall.
``For months, our state has been battling historic flooding,
causing untold damage to homes, businesses, and farms across
Illinois,'' Pritzker said. ``For our farmers, this has meant delaying,
reducing, or even eliminating planting, hurting a core state industry
and impacting working families across Illinois. While the state will
continue to do everything we can to help, a Secretarial Disaster
Declaration will provide much needed aid to impacted farmers in
Illinois and I am hopeful the USDA will make this declaration.''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Jane Satterlee is boated out from her trailer on June 11 in East Cape
Girardeau by National Guardsmen Andrew Lucas and Tony Clark.--Isaac
Smith
Letter of February 14, 2019, from David P. Ross, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast
February 14, 2019.
Hon. Brian J. Mast
House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Mast:
Thank you for your October 26, 2018, letter requesting the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide information on
cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, You specifically requested the EPA's
expertise on two questions:
1. Do you consider microcystins algae, blue-green algae, and
cyanobacteria to be toxins?
2. At what level do you consider each to be harmful to human
health?
The EPA understands your concern about the presence of harmful
algal blooms (HABs) in Lake Okeechobee and the potential adverse
impacts these blooms could have on human and ecosystem health.
Cyanobacteria and their toxins are considered a serious and growing
threat to human health. In freshwater, cyanobacteria, sometimes called
``blue-green algae,'' are the major HABs-forming group. Cyanobacteria
are microorganisms that can produce harmful cyanotoxins, such as
microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin-a. Adverse health
outcomes from exposure to cyanotoxins may range from a mild skin rash
to serious illness. Specifically, some of the adverse effects reported
after exposure to these toxins in drinking water include damage in the
liver, kidney, and nervous system. Symptoms reported after acute
recreational exposure to cyanobacterial blooms includes skin
irritations, allergic reactions, and gastrointestinal illnesses.
Regarding the levels at which these toxins can be harmful to human
health, in 2015, the EPA developed non-regulatory drinking water health
advisories (HAs) for two cyanotoxins, microcystins and
cylindrospermopsin, to assist federal, state, and local officials, and
managers of public or community water systems to protect public health
from cyanotoxins in drinking water. The EPA developed HAs for bottle-
fed infants and pre-school children (0.3 g/L for microcystins and 0.7
g/L for cylindrospermopsin) and for school-age children and adults (1.6
g/L for microcystins and 3.0 g/L for cylindrospermopsin). The EPA
also developed health effects support documents for the cyanobacterial
toxins anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, and microcystins summarizing
relevant information on occurrence in surface water systems and
toxicology and epidemiology data. The HAs and health effects support
documents for cyanotoxins can be found on the EPA Drinking Water Health
Advisory website: www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-
water-health-advisory-documents-cyanobacterial-toxins.
In 2016, the EPA published draft Recreational Criteria/Swimming
Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin under Section 304(a)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for public comment. These Criteria/
Advisories focus on health risks associated with recreational exposure
to fresh waters contaminated with microcystins and/or
cylindrospermopsin. The EPA is currently revising the draft criteria
document based on the public comments and we plan to issue final
criteria recommendations in 2019.
The EPA continues to evaluate the human health effects from
cyanobacteria and the toxins they produce in drinking and recreational
waters. In 2015, as part of the Drinking Water Protection Act, the EPA
developed a drinking water strategic plan for assessing and managing
the risks of algal toxins impacting public drinking water systems. The
strategic plan includes assessing the human health risks from emerging
toxins, including microcystins. The EPA also listed cyanotoxins on the
drinking water Contaminant Candidate List for further assessment of
health effects data. In addition, the EPA, states, and drinking water
utilities are implementing plans to monitor the nation's drinking water
systems to determine the extent of contamination by cyanotoxins through
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
The EPA will continue to invest resources in researching human
health effects and developing risk communication materials to protect
human health from cyanobacterial toxins in drinking and recreational
waters. The EPA developed several support recommendations and
communication tools for public water systems, including:
Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in
Drinking Water, Cyanotoxin Management Plan Template and Example Plans,
Drinking Water Cyanotoxin Risk Communication Toolbox, and Water
Treatment Optimization for Cyanotoxins Document. The EPA also published
communication materials for states, tribes, and communities to use to
protect public health during cyanobacterial HABs in recreational
waters, including: Recommendations for Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxin
Monitoring in Recreational Waters, and Recreational Water Communication
Toolbox for Cyanobacterial Blooms. These and more resources on
cyanotoxins are available on the EPA Cyanobacterial HABs website:
epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/cyanobacterial-harmful-algal-blooms-water.
Again, the EPA appreciates your concern regarding cyanobacterial
toxins in freshwater systems in Florida and is committed to working
with the appropriate agencies to protect human health. The EPA
coordinates with federal agencies and states and provides technical
assistance during HABs and emergencies, such as the recent cyanotoxin
events in Florida. During the HABs events in Lake Okeechobee, the EPA
Office of Water and the EPA Region 4 Water Quality Planning Branch
provided technical assistance to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to address public health concerns. The EPA
also supports and assists three National Estuary Programs in southwest
Florida: the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program, and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, If
you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may
contact Denis Borum in the EPA's Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations.
Sincerely,
David P. Ross
Assistant Administrator
Press Release of May 22, 2019, Issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast
news releases from headquarters > water (ow)
epa issues recommendations for recreational water quality criteria and
swimming advisories for cyanotoxins
May 22, 2019.
WASHINGTON--Today, as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)'s efforts to better protect Americans' health when they
swim or play near the water this summer, EPA is issuing new
recommendations for water quality criteria and swimming advisory values
for two cyanotoxins.
``With Memorial Day and summer vacations around the corner, EPA is
providing this information to help Americans know when it is safe to
swim and play near the water,'' said EPA Office of Water Assistant
Administrator David Ross. ``EPA's new recommendations will help state
and local officials make informed decisions about when to issue local
water quality and swimming advisories that are designed to protect the
public, especially vulnerable populations like our nation's children.''
Algal blooms caused by cyanobacteria sometimes produce cyanotoxins
at concentrations that can be harmful to people swimming or
participating in other activities in or on the water. States can adopt
EPA's recommended cyanotoxin values into their water quality standards
or use the values as the basis for issuing a local swimming advisory.
Based on the latest scientific information, EPA has established
recommended water concentrations, at or below which protects public
health, for the cyanotoxins microcystins (8 micrograms per liter) and
cylindrospermopsin (15 micrograms per liter). EPA's recommendations are
protective of all age groups and are based on peer-reviewed and
published science.
EPA is also releasing infographics that states and communities can
use to communicate basic information about harmful algal blooms (HABs)
to the public. The infographics highlight how HABs may affect both
people and animals and provide guidance on how to identify and respond
to a potential HAB. States, tribes and waterbody managers can download
handout- and poster-sized infographic files, along with instructions on
how to add local contact information, from EPA's newly refreshed
Cyanobacterial HABs website.
EPA will soon release draft technical support materials for public
comment that, when final, are intended to help interested states and
authorized tribes in implementing these recommended values. Support
materials will include information on waterbody monitoring, assessing
attainment of water quality standards, listing of impaired water bodies
and developing total maximum daily loads under Clean Water Act section
303(d).
For more information about the recommended criteria and swimming
advisories visit: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/recreational-water-quality-
criteria-and-methods
To download EPA's HABs infographics, visit https://www.epa.gov/
cyanohabs/infographics-help-educate-public-habs-basics.
last updated on may 22, 2019
Letter of May 1, 2019, from Robert Redfield, M.D., Director, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and Administrator, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian
J. Mast
May 1, 2019.
Hon. Brian Mast
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Mast:
Thank you for your letter requesting information regarding toxins
and toxic water. You expressed particular interest in cyanobacteria
(also known as blue-green algae) and microcystins.
Enclosed with this response are answers to your questions.
Thank you, again, for your letter. We hope this information is
helpful. If you have any additional questions or concerns. please
contact Eric Wortman or Amanda Crouse in the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) Washington Office.
Sincerely,
Robert Redfield, M.D.
Director, CDC, and
Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Enclosure
the centers for disease control and prevention's answers to questions
about cyanobacteria and microcystins
1. Do you consider microcystin algae, blue-green algae, and
cyanobacteria to be toxins?
The term algae refers to plant-like organisms that are multi-celled
or single-celled and photosynthetic (i.e., use sunlight to create
food). Algae are vitally important to oceans, lakes, and rivers because
they are the building blocks of the food chain and ecosystem. Algae are
also vital to bodies of water because they produce oxygen to sustain
life. Multi-celled algae can include seaweed, and single-celled algae
include microscopic organisms called phytoplankton.
Phytoplankton can be divided into two categories, cyanobacteria and
microalgae. Cyanobacteria and microalgae are organisms, not toxins.
Cyanobacteria may also be known as blue-green algae, although the more
accurate term is cyanobacteria.
Cyanobacteria are not infectious and are not toxic per se. However,
under the right environmental circumstances, cyanobacteria can exhibit
exuberant growth, or bloom, and may produce toxins that can be released
into the water. Toxins produced by cyanobacteria include anatoxin-a,
beta-methylamino-L-alanine, cylindrospermopsin, nodularins, saxitoxins,
and microcystins.
Microcystins are potent liver toxins produced by some species of
cyanobacteria, including Microcystis aeruginosa. Microcystins can
affect human, animal, and ecosystem health.
2. At what level or numeric threshold do you consider each to be
harmful to human health?
Toxins produced by cyanobacteria (i.e., cyanobacterial toxins) vary
in their chemical compositions and toxicities. The World Health
Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
provide guidance on how to assess whether or not a cyanobacterial bloom
is a potential threat to human health. This guidance is limited to
microcystins and cylindrospermopsin, as limited data are available to
develop guidance for many of the other cyanobacterial toxins. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention refers to this guidance in
its work with states and other public health partners to reduce the
occurrence of harmful exposures to cyanobacterial toxins.
WHO guidance values for the relative probubility of acute health
effects during recreational exposure to cyanobacteria and the
probability of microcystins concentrations are based on cell counts and
the concentrations of microcystin-LR (the most studied of the
microcystins) and chlorophyll in the water.
You can find WHO's guidance values on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/
nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-and-recommendations, and we have
reproduced them in Table 1.
Table 1. WHO Guidance on Relative Probability of Acute Health Effects during Exposure to Varying Cells Counts of
Cyanobacteria and Concentrations of Microcystin-LR and Chlorophyll
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Probability of Acute
Health Effects Cyanobacteria (cells/mL) Microcystin-LR (g/L) Chlorophyll-a (g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low............................... < 20,000 < 10 < 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderate.......................... 20,000-100,000 10-20 10-50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High.............................. 100,000-10,000,000 20-2,000 50-5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very High......................... > 10,000,000 > 2,000 > 5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has created guidance in the form of health advisories, or HAs,
that provide microcystin and cylindrospermopsin levels in drinking
water sources and recreational waters to help determine the potential
health risks from using the water. The HAs are not regulations and
should not be construed as legally enforceable federal standards. HAs
may change as new information becomes available.
You can find the guidance for recreational waters at www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/draft-hh-rec-ambient-water-
swimming-factsheet.pdf. We have reproduced the information in Table 2.
Table 2. EPA's Health Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin in Recreational Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swimming Advisory: not to be exceeded on any day Recreational
Toxin Criteria for Waterbody Impairment: not exceeded more than 10
percent of days per recreational season up to 1 calendar year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microcystins................................... 4 g/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylindrospermopsin............................. 8 g/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can find EPA's guidance for drinking water at www.epa.gov/
nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-and-recommendations#what3. We have
reproduced the information in Table 3.
Table 3. EPA's Health Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin in Drinking Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking Water Health Advisory (10-day) \1\
---------------------------------------------------
Toxin Bottle-fed infants and School-age children and
pre-school children adults
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microcystins................................................ 0.3 g/L 1.6 g/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylindrospermopsin.......................................... 0.7 g/L 3 g/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many\\ states have also developed drinking water and recreational
water guidance levels for various cyanobacterial toxins. You can find
them on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-
and-recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Health advisories describe non-regulatory concentrations of
drinking water contaminants at or below which adverse health effects
are not anticipated to occur over specific exposure durations (e.g. one
day, 10 days, several years, and a lifetime). The health advisory fact
sheet for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin can be found at
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/cyanotoxins-
fact_sheet-2015.pdf.
Letter of April 16, 2019, from David D. Whiting, Deputy Director,
Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Brian J. Mast
April 16, 2019.
Hon. Brian Mast
United States House of Representatives, 2182 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Mast:
Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 2019 asking about
thresholds used to determine whether a cyanobacteria bloom is toxic.
First and foremost, the health of Florida residents and visitors is
the primary concern to DEP and the Florida Department of Health (DOH).
In my response to your earlier inquiry, I indicated the State of
Florida relies upon a precautionary presence/absence approach that is
much more stringent than numeric thresholds. This approach bases public
health protections on the visible presence of cyanobacteria in a
waterbody as the trigger mechanism for advisories, media releases, and
other forms of public outreach. This approach is more protective and
easier for the public to understand than using numeric thresholds to
determine when to notify the public for a variety of reasons I will
address below.
The World Health Organization's (WHO) thresholds (https://
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/toxcyanchap5.pdf)
for recreational bathers, including swimmers, sail-board riders and
water skiers, are 10 micrograms per liter of microcystin-LR (MC-LR) for
a low probability of adverse effects (e.g., irritative or allergic
reactions that affect less than 30% of the population and ``result in
discomfort rather than serious health outcomes'') and 20 micrograms per
liter of MC-LR threshold for moderate probability of health effects
(e.g., increased long-term risk through ingestion). The WHO suggests
health organizations should use these thresholds to determine when to
notify the public and what risk to convey. Florida's approach of ``See
it, stay away'' is more proactive and thus more protective than relying
solely on thresholds to determine course of action.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
produced draft thresholds for recreational waters for microcystins (8
micrograms per liter) and cylindrospermopsins (15 micrograms per
liter), however these thresholds have not been finalized.
There are a number of reasons why the State of Florida believes a
more precautionary approach, one based simply on the presence of a
cyanobacteria bloom, is warranted over specific toxin thresholds, these
include:
1.) rapidly changing bloom conditions;
a. wind, current, tide, atmospheric pressure, and time of day
can significantly influence where and how densely a bloom is
concentrated;
2.) the time required to sample, ship, analyze, and then report
toxin concentrations take too long to effectively support management
decisions regarding the need for placing or removing an advisory;
a. under our current expedited sampling and analysis routine,
the time required from sample collection to results reporting is 3-4
days;
3.) cyanobacteria have the potential to produce many other
cyanotoxin compounds besides MC-LR for which no human health thresholds
currently exist;
a. other cyanotoxins include other microcystins (there are more
than 240 known, but analytical standards exist for only about a dozen),
aeruginosins, cyanopeptolins, anabaenopeptins, microviridins,
cyclamides, lipopolysaccharides, polyketides, and some non-essential
amino acids;
b. EPA has not offered sufficiently robust guidance on what
sample collection or analytical chemistry methods should be used when
quantifying cyanotoxins;
c. This could lead to large variations in reported values and
the potential to underestimate the public health risk posed by a bloom;
4.) poor scientific understanding of what triggers blooms to start
or stop producing toxins;
a. levels of toxin production may be influenced by nutrient
concentrations, which strains of cyanobacteria species are dominant,
and the health of bloom; however little information exist that can
currently be used to predict whether a bloom will be toxic or not.
I hope you find this information useful. Should you need more
information, please don't hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
David D. Whiting
Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and
Restoration
Letter of November 9, 2018, from David D. Whiting, Deputy Director,
Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Brian J. Mast
November 9, 2018.
Hon. Brian Mast
United States House of Representatives, 2182 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Mast:
Thank you for your inquiry and your interest in cyanobacteria and
the management of Lake Okeechobee. As Deputy Director of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Division of
Environmental Assessment and Restoration, I oversee the sampling and
processing of cyanobacteria in Florida's freshwater environments, and
Secretary Valenstein has asked me to respond to your letter on his
behalf. This is a relatively complex issue, and while I am happy to
address your questions below, I also remain available to offer any
technical assistance you may need.
Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, are a group of
bacteria that can be found all over the world and naturally occur in
Florida's freshwater and marine habitats. These bacteria are
microorganisms that function like algae in that they are capable of
photosynthesis and derive their energy from the sun.
Cyanobacterial cells may or may not contain toxins. Even when a
cyanobacterial cell has the necessary genes to enable it to produce
toxins, it may not always do so. Scientists are still actively
researching what environmental conditions trigger a cyanobacteria cell
to produce toxins.
Microcystins are one class of toxins that can be produced by some
species of cyanobacteria. In Florida, the most common microcystin
experienced is Microcystis aeruginosa. The microcystin toxins are
usually contained within the cell until cell death, when the cell wall
fails and the toxins are released into the surrounding water.
Because cyanobacterial cells are capable of, but do not always
produce or release toxins, the Department focuses its sampling efforts
on the locations that best represent the overall condition and water
quality of the bloom affected water. DEP and other state and local
agencies collect samples when algal blooms are observed during their
routine water quality monitoring, as well as in response to public
reports. To make it easy for the public to report algal blooms, the
Department has established both a hotline and online tool at
www.reportalgalbloom.com or toll-free at 1-855-305-3903. Our laboratory
performs both cyanotoxin and algal taxonomy analyses on samples
collected, with results typically provided to the public within 3-4
days of collection on DEP's webpage.
The Florida Department of Health (DOH) is the lead state agency for
addressing potential human health impacts related to cyanobacteria and
other harmful algal blooms (HAB). DOH monitors the State's Poison
Control hotline 1-800-222-1222 and emergency room reports for possible
HAB-related activity. DOH also provides technical assistance and
educational materials to local health departments in affected counties.
Due to the highly variable nature of cyanobacteria blooms in
Florida's waters, DOH and DEP agree that numeric toxin thresholds are
not the most protective mechanism to trigger a recreational advisory or
closure threshold. Algal blooms conditions can change too rapidly for
analytical results to accurately reflect current conditions. Florida
uses a more precautionary approach and advises citizens and visitors to
avoid recreating in any surface waters with visible algae present. DOH
implements this precautionary presence/absence strategy for protecting
the public when recreating in surface waters, warning the public to
avoid contact and use of waters experiencing a cyanobacteria bloom.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
published drinking water thresholds for two cyanotoxins, microcystins
and cylindrospermopsin (https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-
water/additional-information-about-cyanotoxins-drinking-water). Public
drinking water facilities in Florida are currently monitoring for these
toxins in response to EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
(https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/fourth-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-
rule).
I hope this information provides more clarification. Should you
need more information in the future, the Department proudly boasts a
team of a capable and knowledgeable scientists who stand ready to serve
as a technical resource for you.
Sincerely,
David D. Whiting
Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and
Restoration
Validation Study--Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, June 2019,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has prepared a
Validation Study for the Wrightsville Beach, N.C. Coastal Storm Risk
Management (CSRM) project. The Study's purpose is to determine
continued Federal interest (through 2036) and to increase the total
construction cost capacity established by Section 902 of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. We anticipate a WRDA 2020
authorization will allow the opportunity for ongoing Federal
participation.
This Validation Study is being conducted under the existing project
authority and is a cost-shared effort with the non-Federal sponsor, the
Town of Wrightsville Beach. The USACE is the lead agency with the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as a cooperating agency.
Project Delivery Team (PDT) representatives include members of the
USACE Wilmington, Jacksonville and Savannah Districts with
participation by the Town of Wrightsville Beach, New Hanover County and
other Federal and State agencies.
The report is a fully Integrated Validation Study and Environmental
Assessment that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the USACE's water resources planning process. The
Recommended Plan would not result in any significant impacts to
federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated
critical habitat, would have no significant impact to sites listed or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places,
would not significantly impact any wetlands or waters of the U.S., nor
any protected wildlife habitat. Informal Section 7 coordination with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been successfully
completed. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
have been actively involved throughout this study and will have
additional opportunity to provide input, as will the public, during a
30-day public review period ending early August 2019.
The Recommended Plan is the environmentally preferred alternative
as assessed by PDT participants. Coordination with resource agency
representatives was initiated early in the study. Appropriate avoidance
and minimization measures (i.e. environmental windows, beach placement
activities, borrow source selection and use, etc.) were developed and
integrated into the Validation Study process. These measures reduce
project impacts and conserve Federal and non-Federal funds.
The Wrightsville Beach Recommended Plan expects annual benefits of
$10,425,000 and average annual costs of $2,004,000; yielding a benefit
to cost ratio of 5.2 to 1.
Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report--Carolina Beach, North Carolina,
June 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has prepared a
Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (BRER) for the purpose of
determining continued Federal interest and extending the Carolina
Beach, N.C. Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) project an additional
15 years (through 2036). The study was conducted under Section 1037 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. With continued
Federal interest determined, a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 2020 authorization will allow for ongoing Federal participation.
Project Delivery Team (PDT) representatives included members of the
USACE Wilmington, Jacksonville and Savannah Districts with the
participation by the Town of Carolina Beach, New Hanover County and
other Federal and State agencies. The Town of Carolina Beach, as the
non-Federal sponsor, has cost-shared the BRER.
The BRER is a fully integrated evaluation report and Environmental
Assessment that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the USACE's water resources planning process. The
Recommended Plan would not result in any significant impacts to
federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated
critical habitat, would have no significant impact to sites listed or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places,
would not significantly affect any wetlands or waters of the U.S., nor
any protected wildlife habitat. Informal Section 7 coordination was
successfully completed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have been
actively involved throughout this evaluation and will have an
additional opportunity to review and comment on the report, as will the
Public, during the 30-day state and agency review period ending in
early August 2019.
The Recommended Plan is the environmentally preferable alternative
as assessed by PDT participants. Coordination with resource agency
representatives was initiated early in the study and appropriate
avoidance and minimization measures (i.e. environmental windows, beach
placement activities, borrow source selection and use, etc.) were
developed and integrated during the BRER process reducing project
impacts and conserving Federal and non-Federal funds.
The Carolina Beach Recommended Plan expects annual benefits of
$6,749,000 and average annual costs of $1,718,000; yielding a benefit
to cost ratio is 3.9 to 1.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
Question 1. One of the Corps main mission areas involves flood and
storm damage reduction. The north central region of Texas suffers from
significant flooding.
How can the Corps develop national programs that focus on
preventing flooding rather than being reactive and responding to
flooding?
Answer. Flood and storm damage reduction is a primary mission for
the Corps. The Corps currently has several national programs under
which they provide flood risk hazard data and technical assistance to
states and local communities to support their efforts to understand,
reduce and prevent flooding. These programs include the Flood Plain
Management Services, Planning Assistance to States, and Silver Jackets.
The Corps also has the authority to study and construct flood and storm
damage reduction projects of limited size and scope through Section 205
of the Continuing Authorities Program. Finally, the Corps conducts
specifically authorized flood risk management feasibility studies
through the Investigations program which can lead to the construction
of specifically authorized projects that focus on preventing future
flooding.
Question 2. How can the Corps share information of flooded areas
with navigation technology providers to re-route drivers away from
flooded roads and highways?
Answer. Local government agencies are responsible for managing and
directing local evacuation plans during flood events. Any information
on flooded roads would need to come from the local governments.
Question 3. Does the Corps have the authority it needs to address
stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and recharge aquifers?
Answer. Stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and aquifer
recharge are typically a local responsibility. However, Section 219 of
WRDA 1992, as amended, provides authority to the Corps to carry out
water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and
development projects.
Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
Question 1. I recently offered an amendment to the Energy and Water
appropriations bill that would limit funding to complete the EIS for
Pebble Mine. Based on what I have heard from commercial fishermen,
recreational fishermen, Native Alaskans, and many others, I believe the
risks of this mine in Bristol Bay are too high.
Just after the House adopted my amendment on a bipartisan basis the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted their comments on the
Draft EIS to your agency. In over 200 pages of detailed comments, the
EPA essentially said the EIS does not accurately estimate the negative
impacts of the mine and that the agency does not think the project will
comply with the Clean Water Act.
I respectfully request that you provide the Committee with a
written response to each issue raised by the EPA in detail within sixty
days. Specifically, how do you address EPA's concern that the mine
could result in the loss of genetic diversity within the Bristol Bay
salmon populations. In addition, please address the shortfalls in the
overall analysis and the compensatory mitigation plans.
Additionally, as you know, the guidelines for a 404 Clean Water Act
Permit require the Corps to analyze alternatives to a proposed
discharge of dredged or fill material and ``select the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative.'' As part of this
process, the Corps must provide that ``a[n] alternative is practicable
if it is available and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes.''
As part of determining the overall project purpose, the Corps must
consider the objectives of an applicable governmental land use plan,
which in the case of the Pebble Mine in Alaska would include the 2005
Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands as later amended in 2013 (2013
BBAP). Please provide to the Committee evidence that the Corps has
considered the objectives of the 2013 BBAP.
Answer. A complete response to all of EPA's comments cannot be
provided at this time and will likely not be complete until the
publication of the final EIS, as resolution of some of the issues may
require further investigations/studies and/or analysis and discussion
with EPA. The Corps is currently reviewing EPA's comments and has
conducted technical workshops with cooperating agencies, including EPA.
Review of the comments, combined with information obtained during the
workshops, will allow the Corps to determine where data gaps and
shortfalls in the overall analysis may exist in the draft EIS. This is
an important step in the NEPA process and will identify sections of the
draft EIS that need additional work. The Corps intends to address all
substantive comments, including EPA's, in the final EIS, which is
currently not scheduled to be completed until mid-2020.
Development of the final compensatory mitigation plan is an
iterative process. The conceptual compensatory mitigation plan was
included in the draft EIS to solicit input from stakeholders for
potential compensatory mitigation options. The Corps will consider this
input and work with the applicant to develop a final compensatory
mitigation plan. A compensatory mitigation plan would not be finalized
until after the applicant has demonstrated all practicable avoidance
and minimization measures for the applicant's preferred alternative.
The overall project purpose is used in the development and
evaluation of the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative under the Corp's Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) evaluation. It
is the Corps' responsibility to define the overall project purpose,
however the applicant's needs and the type of project are considered
when defining the overall project purpose. The Corps will consider land
use as part of the public interest review that is required for this
permit application. The Corps' regulations state that the primary
responsibility for determining zoning and land use matters rests with
state, local, and tribal governments, and the Corps will normally
accept decisions by such governments on those matters unless there are
significant issues of overriding national importance (33 CFR
320.4(j)(2)).
The Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) was developed and is implemented
by the State, and the Corps will give full consideration and
appropriate weight to any comments the State may have regarding the
consistency of the proposed project with the BBAP.
Question 2. Secretary James, there are multiple efforts within
California to restore rivers and streams in order to recover salmon
runs and other fish and wildlife habitat. Some components of these
efforts are eligible for CAP funding, yet project managers don't apply
based on the view that the program is oversubscribed and underfunded.
Can you please provide the Committee with an region by region analysis
of the demand for CAP funding compared to the actual funding provided
to the program by Congress?
Answer. It is difficult to estimate with any accuracy the demand
for CAP funding. For example, some proposals may not be viable. Also,
some non-Federal sponsors may be constrained in their ability to move
forward on potential projects. The table below shows the funds
available for obligation as of June 30, 2019 and represents both
regular and supplemental appropriations.
CAP FY 2019--Federal Funds Available for Obligation and Total Demand by Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRD Funds MVD Funds NAD Funds NWD Funds POD Funds SAD Funds SPD Funds SWD Funds Total Funds
Avail for Avail for Avail for Avail for Avail for Avail for Avail for Avail for Avail for
Oblig Oblig Oblig Oblig Oblig Oblig Oblig Oblig Oblig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 14\\............................ $5,472,647 $2,477,612 $2,535,193 $1,573,617 $25,893 $1,924,819 $238,986 $837,041 $15,085,807
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103\\........................... $845,975 $60,908 $1,517,88 $2,952,647 $170,368 $57,700 $430,346 $12,006 $6,047,338
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 107............................. $4,154,060 $138,913 $3,636,658 $(205,428) $316,728 $77,409 $5,193,222 $42,002 $13,353,566
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111............................. $78,774 $10,017 $385,303 $20,053 $22 $159,310 $20,840 $78 $674,398
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 204............................. $546,466 $800,178 $1,570,945 $112,277 $10,267 $116,964 $57,381 $11,323 $3,225,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 205............................. $6,515,870 $405,271 $1,717,288 $2,756,815 $1,060,496 $921,108 $1,772,728 $1,326,593 $16,476,169
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 206............................. $2,435,239 $309,517 $4,140,138 $960,359 $82,694 $4,406,713 $374,736 $976,434 $13,685,829
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1135............................ $449,026 $235,452 $2,697,674 $4,213,172 $20,169 $636,623 $1,201,304 $88,877 $9,542,299
========================================================================================================================================================
Totals.............................. $20,498,058 $4,437,869 $18,200,586 $12,383,512 $1,686,638 $8,300,647 $9,289,543 $3,294,355 $78,091,208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data as of 30 Jun 2019.
\2\ Includes unobligated supplemental funds from PL 113-2 and PL 115-123.
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
Question 1. Can you please provide a status update on the
Sacramento District's Lower Cache Creek Feasibility Study and assure me
that the Corps is doing everything possible to complete this critical
Study as expeditiously as possible?
Answer. The project successfully completed the Tentatively Selected
Plan (TSP) Milestone in February 2019 and the district is preparing to
publicly release the draft Feasibility Report in December 2019. The
Corps is processing a SMART Planning exemption for additional time and
additional funding to complete the Chief's Report.
Question 2. When does the Corps expect to finalize the Programmatic
Agreement among the Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles
Districts and the California State Historic Preservation Officer
regarding implementation of section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966?
Answer. The Corps will provide the California State Historic
Preservation Officer (CA SHPO) our final draft Programmatic Agreement
on August 1, 2019. We will follow up with the SHPO on a regular basis
to address any issues remaining until the SHPO has made a decision on
the Programmatic Agreement.
Question 3. The Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration Project in Lake County, California, was authorized in Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114). Now 12 years
later, it is far from completed despite $15 million in state funding
secured recently. Is the Corps prepared to re-engage on the Middle
Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project, and can
you please provide a timeline for the Project's estimated completion?
Answer. In January 2019, the local Non Federal Sponsor, Lake
County, informed the Corps Sacramento District they had received a
State grant to purchase real estate and were now ready to move forward
with the project. In May 2019 the Corps met with Lake County and the
State of California, Department of Water Resources to establish the
path forward to restart the project. Lake County is currently
conducting real estate acquisition with available local funding.
Funding to update and finalize the feasibility study for this
project to include a revised Supplemental EIS/ROD to include Section
106 Cultural Resources and Section 7 Endangered Species Act compliance
will be considered for future funding along with other programs,
projects, and activities across the Nation competing for the available
Federal resources. Upon receipt of funding, the Corps projects the
study will take 16 to 20 months to complete.
Question 4. Will the Corps consider including the Middle Creek
Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project in the Civil
Works Work Plan for fiscal year 2020?
Answer. If Congress provides additional funding via an enacted
appropriations bill in FY 2020, this project will be considered along
with other projects, programs, and activities across the Nation
competing for the available Federal resources.
Question 5. Given the small-scale of the Middle Creek Flood Damage
Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project relative to other projects,
will the Corps consider requesting a single appropriation for both the
design and construction phases?
Answer. Prior to contemplating design and construction funding for
this project, the Corps must first complete the feasibility study.
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
Environmental Infrastructure
Question 1. Some environmental infrastructure authorities have
created regional programs for a state or multiple states. These
programs can provide Corps assistance for multiple projects within the
region. I have introduced legislation (H.R. 2206) to create a program
for Arizona. Could you describe some benefits of a regional program to
address water and wastewater infrastructure, such as flexibility to
provide assistance to the most beneficial projects and meeting needs as
they arise before performance and reliability are compromised, compared
to environmental assistance authorities for a specific locality, such
as the assistance under the 219 authority?
Answer. The primary value of regional environmental infrastructure
programs is that the authorities may be more generic than the Section
219 authority and therefore a regional authority may be used to
complete work that may not have been specifically contemplated at the
time of authorization.
Rio Salado Oeste
Question 2. Rio Salado Oeste in the Salt River through the heart of
Phoenix is a key Corps project that connects the completed Rio Salado
Habitat Restoration Area to the east with the Tres Rios Environmental
Restoration project to the west. To date, this project only has partial
design completed. A Limited Re-evaluation Report (LRR) is needed to re-
authorize this project and move this important connecting project
forward. Can you please provide me with a plan on how best we move
forward with a revised LRR for this project, the resources needed, and
how those resources will be allocated within the Corps to create this
report and any other steps necessary to obtain project authorization.
Answer. The Rio Salado Oeste Ecosystem Restoration project is not
consistent with the policy and programs of the Executive Branch because
the proposed plan does not represent an efficient way to target Federal
and non-Federal resources for aquatic ecosystem restoration. The
project, as currently authorized, includes upland areas that extend too
far away (north and south) from the riparian zone which was
historically supported by the natural hydraulics and hydrology of the
respective watersheds. By including upland areas that are outside of
the Corps' typical mission focus on wetland, riparian, and aquatic
ecosystem restoration, the cost of the project is inflated and the
aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits that would accrue to the nation
are overstated and not cost effective. To put this proposed project on
par with similar desert southwest aquatic ecosystem restoration
activities, upland habitat restoration would need to be removed from
the project or provided by others as part of a locally preferred plan.
The City of Phoenix, the non-Federal sponsor, has provided a Letter of
Intent to re-initiation the study to evaluate options to reformulate
the project to address the afore-mentioned outstanding concerns. An
updated feasibility cost sharing agreement will be required prior to
restarting the study.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Question 1. In WRDA 2016, we asked the Corps to establish an
inventory of the nation's jetties and breakwaters. What can you tell us
about the status of the study, especially for jetties located in the
Pacific Northwest?
Answer. The report is under development.
Question 2.a. The Corps has provided us with data previously that
all of the nation's navigation channels could be at full widths and
depths in five years if the Corps was allocated $2.3 billion a year,
over five years. The Committee has just reported by voice vote my bill,
which would provide you with those funds.
If this bill was enacted into law tomorrow--and the Corps receives
the funding, does the Corps have the capability to meet this goal?
Answer. No.
Question 2.b. If not, how do we ensure the Corps has the capability
to execute additional navigation maintenance revenues when they are
provided by Congress?
Answer. The Corps would need to increase its capabilities for
contracting, surveying and dredging related activities associated with
this increase in funding. The U.S. dredging industry may not have
enough capacity to execute the dredging requirements. Buildup of the
program, including additional dredging assets, would be necessary to
address all of the dredging at every federal navigation channel.
Question 3. How many Federally authorized harbors is the Corps
currently responsible for operations and maintenance (including
maintenance dredging through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)?
Answer. The current estimate is that there are 1212 Federally
authorized harbors for which the Corps is responsible for operation and
maintenance.
Question 3.a. Of those harbors, how many fall into the categories
of high-use, moderate-use, and emerging harbors, as defined in section
210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986?
Answer. Navigation portfolio data pulled from the Navigation Data
Center, included 58 high use channels, 79 moderate use channels, and
440 low use HMTF eligible harbors.
Question 3.b. Of those harbors, can you identify all of the
Federally-authorized harbors that have received operation and
maintenance funding (through the HMTF) over the last 20 fiscal years
(and an estimate of the amount received by each)? For the remaining
number of authorized harbors (those that have not received operation
and maintenance funding over the past 20 fiscal years), what is the
current general condition or status of these projects (e.g. are they
still in use as commercial harbors)?
Answer. There is not currently available data to provide in regards
to funding levels of authorized harbors over the last 20 years. All
Federally-authorized navigation projects are maintained to support
commercial navigation where it exists. I am not aware of any
circumstance where a navigation project has been unable to support
commercial navigation due to a lack of maintenance.
Question 3.c. What is the current identified unmet operation and
maintenance needs for emerging harbors?
Answer. All emerging harbors have received sufficient operation and
maintenance funding to allow passage of commercial traffic. While there
are additional authorized widths and depths that could be dredged, we
do not have a precise estimate of what amount of additional funding
would be needed to meet that need. The Corps roughly estimates that
$550 million would maintain all HMTF eligible low use commercial
projects annually to their authorized widths and depths. Over the last
3 fiscal years, the Corps has received on average $223 million for
coastal low use harbors. A large portion of the Corps low use portfolio
includes channels that have diminished economic activity since their
original authorization, therefore the Corps would not prioritize
maintenance of every low use project. For this reason, any additional
funding would focus on those low use projects, which in the absence of
economic value, would provide other value to the nation such as by
providing a means of fuel import for regional power generation,
subsistence harbors or critical harbors of refuge uses, or support to
the Coast Guard or other federal agencies, or other significant
activities.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Question 1. General Spellmon, WRDA 2018 reauthorized the Corps Dam
Safety Program. This is an important program for the nation--but also
to my district. What is the status of Whittier Narrows Dam? Are we on
track to complete the project on time?
Answer. The Corps is coordinating with Federal and state agencies
to complete the issuance of approvals and permits.
Question 2. The County of Los Angeles is very interested in taking
ownership of parts of the Los Angeles River Flood Control system. The
President's Budget provides funding for this disposition study, and we
are hoping the work plan will fully fund the study. Can you discuss the
Corps' disposition process generally and the next steps for the Corps
and the County of Los Angeles for the L.A. River Flood Control Project?
Answer. The Corps Los Angeles District has been in discussion with
the Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW) regarding transfer of
ownership and related operations, maintenance, and permitting of
project modifications for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA).
The priority project features for the disposition study include
approximately 40 miles of channels and the Haines Canyon Debris Basin.
The disposition process for a completed project operated by the
Corps begins with a disposition study conducted under the authority of
section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 USC Sec. 549a). The
current estimated cost of the LACDA study is $1.25 million of which
$350,000 was included in the FY 2020 Budget. If the disposition study
determines that the project no longer serves its authorized purpose and
that disposal of the associated infrastructure and real property is
feasible, the Corps recommends to Congress that the project be
deauthorized. Following enactment of legislation deauthorizing the
project, the Corps proceeds with disposal of the associated
infrastructure and real property under existing authorities for federal
real property disposal or any special authority included in the
deauthorization legislation for the project.
Question 3. Please provide the Committee with the following:
Question 3.a. A brief summary of the eight Chief's Reports
submitted to Congress for authorization; and
Answer:
1) Little Colorado River at Winslow, Arizona. On December 14,
2018, a report was signed on flood risk management for Winslow, AZ. The
plan consists of new and reconstructed levees, a flood warning system,
and improving conveyance through channelization and removal of Salt
cedar under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Bridge. Based upon
the October 2018 price levels, the total initial project cost for this
project is $79.1 million with the Federal share totaling $51.4 million
and the non-Federal share totaling $27.7 million.
2) Delta Islands and Levees, California. On December 18, 2018, a
report was signed for ecosystem restoration improvements in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Based upon the October 2018 price levels,
the total initial project cost for this project is $25 million with the
Federal share totaling $16.3 million and the non-Federal share totaling
$8.7 million.
3) Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George County,
Maryland. On December 19, 2018, a report was signed for ecosystem
restoration improvements in the Anacostia River Watershed. The plan
consists of the restoration of aquatic habitat, through the removal of
blockages, and the reconnection of restored habitat in the Northwest
and Northeast Branches. Based upon the October 2018 price levels, the
total initial project cost for this project, as recommended in the
Chief's Report, is $34.1 million with the Federal share totaling $22.2
million and the non-Federal share totaling $11.9 million.
4) Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island. On December 19, 2018, a report
was signed on hurricane and storm damage reduction for the Pawcatuck
River, Rhode Island. The plan consists of elevating and flood proofing
structures. Based upon the October 2018 price levels, the total initial
project cost for this project, as recommended in the Chief's Report, is
$54.6 million with the Federal share totaling $35.5 million and the
non-Federal share totaling $19.1 million.
5) Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management, Virginia. On February
05, 2019, a report was signed on hurricane and storm damage reduction
for the City of Norfolk, Virginia. The proposed plan includes
constructing storm surge barriers with a pump and power station at
Pretty Lake. The proposed work would tie into existing floodwalls and
levees. Nonstructural features for the neighborhoods outside of the
structural system include oyster reefs and living shorelines as natural
and nature based features to increase resiliency. Based upon the
October 2018 price levels, the total initial project cost for this
project, as recommended in the Chief's Report, is $1.4 billion with the
Federal share totaling $885.2 million and the non-Federal share
totaling $476.6 million.
6) Souris River Basin, Minot, North Dakota. On April 16, 2019, a
report was signed on flood risk management for the City of Minot, North
Dakota. The plan consists of a diversion channel, earthen levee, a
levee as a tieback and recreation trail connecting to an existing trail
system. Based upon the October 2018 price levels, the total initial
project cost for this project, as recommended in the Chief's Report, is
$87.3 million with the Federal share totaling $56.7 million and the
non-Federal share totaling $30.6 million.
7) Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois. On May 23, 2019, a report
was signed for ecosystem protection improvements to impede upstream
transfer of aquatic nuisance species at Brandon Road Lock and Dam in
Will County, Illinois. The plan would consist of a flushing lock and an
engineered channel, acoustic fish deterrent, electric barrier and an
air bubble curtain. Nonstructural measures would primarily be
implemented by other federal agencies and include public education and
outreach, nonstructural monitoring, integrated pest management,
pesticides, manual or mechanical removal and research and development.
Supporting measures include two boat launches. Based upon the October
2018 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project, as
recommended in the Chief's Report, is $830.8 million with the Federal
share totaling $540.0 million and the non-Federal share totaling $290.8
million.
8) Yuba River, California. On June 20, 2019, a report was signed
for ecosystem restoration improvements on the Yuba River, California.
The plan would consist of a restoring aquatic and riparian habitat
along the lower Yuba River. Based upon the October 2018 price levels,
the total initial project cost for this project, as recommended in the
Chief's Report, is $97.2 million with the Federal share totaling $63.2
million and the non-Federal share totaling $34.0 million.
Question 3.b. Post-authorization change reports needing
Congressional action, including any potential 902 modifications
necessary before calendar year 2020.
Answer. The Corps has completed a disposition study for Willamette
Falls Locks, Willamettte River, Oregon that recommends seismic repairs
prior to transfer of the facility to a non-Federal entity. Based upon
the October 2018 price levels, as recommended in the disposition study,
is $2.827 million.
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Major General Scott A.
Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Question 1. One of the Corps' main mission areas involves flood and
storm damage reduction. The North central region of Texas suffers from
significant flooding.
How can the Corps develop national programs that focus on
preventing flooding rather than being reactive and responding to
flooding?
Answer. Flood and storm damage reduction is a primary mission for
the Corps. The Corps currently has several national programs under
which they provide flood risk hazard data and technical assistance to
states and local communities to support their efforts to understand,
reduce and prevent flooding. These programs include the Flood Plain
Management Services, Planning Assistance to States, and Silver Jackets.
The Corps also has the authority to study and construct flood and storm
damage reduction projects of limited size and scope through Section 205
of the Continuing Authorities Program. Finally, the Corps conducts
specifically authorized flood risk management feasibility studies
through the Investigations program which can lead to the construction
of specifically authorized projects that focus on preventing future
flooding.
Question 2. How can the Corps share information of flooded areas
with navigation technology providers to re-route drivers away from
flooded roads and highways?
Answer. Local government agencies are responsible for managing and
directing local evacuation plans during flood events. Any information
on flooded roads would need to come from the local governments.
Question 3. Does the Corps have the authority it needs to address
stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and recharge aquifers?
Answer. Stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and aquifer
recharge are typically a local responsibility. However, Section 219 of
WRDA 1992, as amended, provides authority to the Corps to carry out
water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and
development projects.
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Major General Scott A. Spellmon,
Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Environmental Infrastructure
Question 1. Some environmental infrastructure authorities have
created regional programs for a state or multiple states. These
programs can provide Corps assistance for multiple projects within the
region. I have introduced legislation (H.R. 2206) to create a program
for Arizona. Could you describe some benefits of a regional program to
address water and wastewater infrastructure, such as flexibility to
provide assistance to the most beneficial projects and meeting needs as
they arise before performance and reliability are compromised, compared
to environmental assistance authorities for a specific locality, such
as the assistance under the 219 authority?
Answer. [Editor's note: Major General Spellmon did not respond to
this question. However, Hon. James responded to this question from Hon.
Stanton above.]
Rio Salado Oeste
Question 2. Rio Salado Oeste in the Salt River through the heart of
Phoenix is a key Corps project that connects the completed Rio Salado
Habitat Restoration Area to the east with the Tres Rios Environmental
Restoration project to the west. To date, this project only has partial
design completed. A Limited Re-evaluation Report (LRR) is needed to re-
authorize this project and move this important connecting project
forward. Can you please provide me with a plan on how best we move
forward with a revised LRR for this project, the resources needed, and
how those resources will be allocated within the Corps to create this
report and any other steps necessary to obtain project authorization.
Answer. [Editor's note: Major General Spellmon did not respond to
this question. However, Hon. James responded to this question from Hon.
Stanton above.]
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Major General Scott A. Spellmon,
Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Question 1. The Bonnet Carre Spillway has been opened four times in
the past four years for the first time in history, and, also for the
first time, twice in one year. There are clearly large-scale factors
that are challenging the normal operating procedures of managing the
Mississippi River. The Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA
2018; Title I of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018; P.L. 115-
270) required a report to Congress on structure and operations plan for
the Old River Control Structure and how it can be best optimized to
manage the Mississippi, Atchafalaya, Red, and Old Rivers. As I
understand it, the Corps will not be completing that report but is
instead completing a three-year ``Old-Mississippi-Atchafalaya-Red
Rivers'' (OMAR) study. I am deeply concerned that a three-year study
does not carry the urgency of addressing how to better manage what is
currently an annual and predictable emergency.
Question 1.a. What is the status of funding for the OMAR study?
Answer. The Corps allocated Fiscal Year 2019 funds to initiate the
OMAR Assessment.
Question 1.b. What are the study's intended objectives?
Answer. The intended objectives of the OMAR Assessment is to:
evaluate operations at the Old River Control Structure (OCRS) with a
focus on the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers; calculate the current
volume of sediment and water passing through ORCS, including potential
changes to those volumes; and evaluate if operational changes at ORCS
are advisable to ensure that the MR&T System can safely pass the
project design flood into the future. The OMAR Assessment will consider
the operation of the Sidney A. Murray Jr. Hydropower Plant and its
impact on, and capability for, sediment distribution, as well as other
upstream and downstream impacts and opportunities in the project area.
Question 1.c. Will the study contain actionable items for the Corps
and for Congress to improve management of these river systems?
Answer. It is too early in the technical assessment to determine if
any actionable items will be recommended to Congress.
Question 2. The Corps just recently released guidance for section
1043 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L.
113-121).
Question 2.a. Could you describe your experiences with the section
1043 program and explain how the Corps will operate the provision
moving forward?
Answer. Two project have proceeded utilizing Section 1043:
1. Clear Creek, TX. A Project Partnership Agreement was executed
between the Department of the Army and the Harris County Flood Control
District for the Clear Creek, Texas Flood Risk Management Project in
June 2019.
2. McCook Reservoir. The Project Partnership Agreement for Phase
II of the McCook reservoir project was executed in January 2019.
If Section 1043 is amended by Congress to allow the commencement of
new projects, the Corps will continue to execute the program in
accordance with the law.
Question 3. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
lauded how the Section 1043 program will allow the Corps and non-
Federal partners to remove major liabilities from the Corps' $100
billion backlog in authorized projects.
Question 3.a. Why does the Corps interpret the program to have
expired if WRDA 18 specifically authorizes an extension of
appropriations through 2023?
Answer. Section 1043(b)(7) of WRRDA 2014 provides that the
authority to commence a project under Section 1043(b) terminates June
10, 2019. Section 1137 of WRDA 2018 amends the provision to authorize
appropriations of $25M for each of the fiscal years 2019 through 2023.
Section 1137 does not amend subsection (b)(7) terminating the authority
to commence new section 1043 projects after June 10, 2019. Thus,
Section 1137 allows 1043 projects that were commenced prior to June 10,
2019, to continue to receive funds (i.e. McCook, and Clear Creek)
through 2023, but it does not allow for the commencement of new
projects under Section 1043 after June 10, 2019.
Question 3.b. Will you commit to reassessing the interpretation of
this technical error as our intent was clearly to reauthorize this
program through 2023?
Answer. A technical correction or amendment is required to be
enacted in law to extend this authority. The FY 2020 and FY 2021
Budgets propose legislative language to extend the provision:
``Section 1043 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 113-121) is
amended--In subparagraph (b)(7), by striking ``5 years'' and
inserting ``10 years''.''
Question 4. As you know, non-federal sponsors are required to
obtain various levels of interest in real property for cost-shared
projects. However, the requirements of real property acquisition are
inflexible to the unique characteristics of individual projects. In
Louisiana, at least 80% of coastal wetlands are privately owned and
must work cooperatively with the non-federal project sponsors to
acquire real estate interests that balance the rights of private land
owners with the needs of the federal government. Section 1115 of WRDA
2018 was intended by Congress to allow more flexibility in the required
level of interest in property to complete a project and to allow better
cooperation with non-federal interests, including private landowners.
The provision specifically directs the Corps to ``first consider the
minimum interest in real property necessary to support the water
resources development project for which such interest is acquired,''
such as a temporary easement or other interest which ``reduce[s] the
overall cost'' and ``reduce[s] time to complete such project, and
minimize conflict with property owners related to such project''.
Despite the language included in WRDA 2018, the guidance issued to
implement this section reaffirmed the Corps' existing guidance, ER 405-
1-12, Chapter 12, which was last updated in 1998.
Question 4.a. Could you describe any re-evaluation of Chapter 12
Regulations following the passage of WRDA 2018 and explain why this
guidance was not altered considering the directives of Section 1115,
especially as several requirements included in that section are not
listed factors of consideration in Chapter 12 Regulations.
Answer. The minimum estates set forth in ER 405-1-12, Chapter 12,
were coordinated with the Department of Justice and represent the
typical minimum estates for the various types of projects listed there,
and are the default and standard estates. However, both Chapter 12, and
Revised Real Estate Policy Guidance Letter 31, January 11 2019, provide
a process for proposing a non-standard estate when such an estate will
support project requirements given the project and its unique
characteristics. Chapter 12 is currently in the revision process, and
comments are being solicited from the field as proposed changes to,
among other things, the minimum estates. Any changes in the minimum
estates will require, as before, coordination with the Department of
Justice to ensure that the federal investment is protected and
landowners are treated equitably and fairly. The federal government
already requires, as does Chapter 12 and revised Real Estate Policy
Guidance Letter 31, that the minimum estate necessary to support the
project be acquired.
Question 4.b. Does the Corps plan revisions of Chapter 12 in light
of the Congressional mandates set forth in Section 1115?
Answer. Chapter 12 is currently in the revision process, and
comments are being solicited from the field as proposed changes to,
among other things, the minimum estates.
Question 5. Subsection (c) of Section 1115 of WRDA 2018
specifically requires the Secretary to consider procedures to acquire
or require acquisition of interest in land used by a State.
Question 5.a. Why does the Corps hold that ``statutory
restrictions'' alone cannot be justification for lesser property
interests, particularly if the policy behind the adoption of such local
restrictions is based on sound policy and in consideration of all
factors set forth by Congress in Section 1115?
Answer. The minimum estate necessary for a project depends on the
project, its requirements and the minimum land interest necessary in
order to support the project. Although a state could certainly require
that a greater interest in land be obtained within its boundaries than
is necessary to support the project, credit for providing that interest
would still depend on federal law and regulations. State legislation
cannot require that a lesser interest than is actually the minimum
necessary to support the project be sufficient for a federal project.
Question 5.b. What procedures does the Corps have in place to
determine what other criteria must be met by a non-Federal sponsor to
justify deviation based on a statutory restriction?
Answer. While state law restrictions and sponsor preferences are
taken into account when determining the minimum interest required for a
project or feature, the Corps cannot approve an interest as the minimum
interest unless it grants sufficient rights, both in scope and
duration, to construct, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate and
restore the project or feature and provides adequate protection to the
project or feature from incompatible uses.
Question 5.c. Has the Corps considered whether such policy
essentially writes state laws off the books and how this might
jeopardize the Corps' ability to deliver projects or cooperate fully
with non-federal sponsors who have property acquisitions laws that
provide no real impediment to the implementation of projects?
Answer. State law restrictions inconsistent with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, or that affect non-federal sponsors legal capability
to acquire the minimum required real property rights for the project
may have the effect that under state law the necessary minimum land
interest to support a federal project cannot be obtained. The federal
government already requires, as does Chapter 12 and revised Real Estate
Policy Guidance Letter 31, that the minimum estate necessary to support
the project be acquired. State legislation cannot reduce that
requirement.
Question 5.d. Has the Corps adopted any policy, written or
otherwise, for the handling of developing standard or non-standard
estates in compliance with Section 1115 mandates and working with non-
federal sponsors to conform to state policies and laws regarding land
acquisition per Section 1115? Could you provide a written copy of this
policy? If not, please explain why and explain whether the Corps
intends to adopt such policy in the future.
Answer. No. Any changes in the minimum estates will require
coordination with the Department of Justice to ensure that the federal
investment is protected and landowners are treated equitably and
fairly. Chapter 12 is currently in the revision process, and comments
are being solicited from the field as proposed changes to, among other
things, the minimum estates.
Question 6. In a February 12, 2019, letter addressed to Lieutenant
General Semonite, the State of Louisiana specifically noted concerns
with Chapter 12 guidance because of its inflexibility to the needs of
individual projects, notwithstanding the fact that the guidance was
last updated in May 1998.
Question 6.a. What did the Corps do to address the comments made by
the State of Louisiana through its Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority relative to Section 1115?
Answer. The implementation guidance issued for Section 1115 takes
into account the comments from the State of Louisiana through its
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.
Question 6.b. Are the state's comments addressed in the
implementation guidance for Section 1115?
Answer. The implementation guidance issued for Section 1115 takes
into account the comments from the State of Louisiana through its
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.
Question 7. The State of Louisiana also submitted comments on other
sections of WRDA 2018, including Sections 1111, 1116, 1120, 1143 and
1176.
Question 7.a. What effort has the Corps made to address those
comments and incorporate them into the implementation guidance for WRDA
2018?
Answer. Comments received from stakeholders during the public input
period including the comments provided by the State of Louisiana
related to the listed provisions were considered as appropriate while
drafting the implementing guidance.
Questions from Hon. Thomas Massie to Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows
Point, Maryland, Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways Council, Inc.
Question 1. In your testimony you mention that if you were to ship
your commodities by truck it equates to over 365,000 additional trucks
on the road. The locks on the river system are getting up there in age.
What is something that Congress could do in the upcoming WRDA bill to
ensure that this critical freight shipping option is available for
years to come?
Answer We believe the most important policy change to be included
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 is changing the cost
share for new Construction and Major Rehab of Inland Waterway Trust
Fund (IWTF) supported projects from the current cost share of 50%
General Treasury and 50% IWTF, to 75% General Treasury and 25% IWTF. We
believe this would be the best value to the Nation based on what has
achieved since 2015.
Thanks to the good work of the T&I Committee, WRRDA14, contained a
cost share changed for the remaining cost of the Olmsted project, from
50% General Treasury and 50% IWTF, to 85% General Treasury and 15%
IWTF, which allowed for efficient funding to flow for our priority
projects the last six fiscal years. Since FY2015, we have seen an about
$400 Million per fiscal year appropriated to IWTF projects. Also in the
FY2019 Appropriation package there was a one-time change in the cost
share of the Chickamauga project from 50% General Treasury and 50%
IWTF, to 85% General Treasury and 15% IWTF.
As a result of these cost share changes, we have seen the cost of
completion decrease along with the projects becoming operational
sooner. Some examples below:
Olmsted Lock and Dam: Post Authorized Cost Report $3.099
Billion, the USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $2.841 Billion, a
cost reduction of $258 Million.
Lower Monongahela Project: Authorized at $1.23 Billion,
the USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $1.09 Billion, a cost
reduction of $221 Million.
Kentucky Lock Project: Authorized at $1.216 Billion, the
USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $1.048 Billion, a cost reduction
of $168 Million.
Chickamauga Lock Project: Authorized at $758 Million, the
USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $669 Million, a cost reduction of
$89 Million.
As you can see efficient funding, has led to an estimated cost
reduction of approximately 12%, or $736 million below authorized cost
of these four projects.
The National Economics Benefits (NEB) for these projects being
completed sooner. Once these projects are operational the country
receives the economic benefits sooner.
Olmsted Lock and Dam: $600 Million per year Net Benefits
4 years equates to $2.4 Billion net benefits that we can
realize.
Lower Monongahela Project: $220 Million per year Net
Benefits 4 years equates to $880 Million net benefits that we
can realize.
Kentucky Lock Project: $100 Million per year Net Benefits
4 years equates to $400 Million net benefits that we can
realize.
Chickamauga Lock Project: $21 Million per year Net
Benefits 4 years equates to $84 Million net benefits that we
can realize.
By changing the Cost share to 75% General Treasury and 25% IWTF we
could realize a cost savings of $736 Million on these projects along
with an annual Net Benefits of $3.764 Billion.
Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify the reasoning for
changing the cost share, on IWTF projects from 50% General Treasury and
50% IWTF, to 75% General Treasury and 25% IWTF. We believe these
results are the best value to the nation.
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Derek Brockbank, Executive
Director, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
Question 1. Natural infrastructure is a key component of our
defense system in Louisiana, where we are losing a football field of
land every 100 minutes due to leveeing the Mississippi River,
subsidence, erosion, and sea level rise. Our coastal networks of
barrier islands and wetlands provide a critical line of defense for our
communities, working as a complement to traditional levees and other
flood infrastructure to keep communities safe.
Question 1.a. What are the benefits and hurdles of using natural
infrastructure alongside or instead of built, hard infrastructure?
Question 1.b. Do you have any policy or process recommendations to
ensure smooth coordination between the Corps and non-federal sponsors
when working to restore and enhance natural infrastructure along the
coast?
Answers (a.-b.):
Natural infrastructure is a key component of coastal risk reduction
across the United States and the world. ``Ecosystem-based approaches to
reduce risks from coastal storms, approaches which draw from the
capacity of wetlands, beaches and dunes, biogenic reefs, and other
natural features to reduce the impacts of storm surge and waves'' have
increased in prominence across the country.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bridges, T, et al. ``Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features
(NNBF) for Coastal Resilience'', ERDC SR, 15-1; 2015. https://erdc-
library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/4769
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) is pleased
to see greater support for and understanding of the way natural systems
reduce risk for coastal communities, but we understand natural
infrastructure alone cannot solve our nation's coastal flood risk, and
there are challenges to using natural infrastructure in combination
with ``traditional'' hard infrastructure exist. Additionally, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a central role in building and
restoring natural infrastructure, but so do local communities, and
healthy coastlines and efficient project delivery will take USACE
coordinating well with local sponsors stakeholders.
a. Natural infrastructure is most effective when used as part of a
Multiple Lines of Defense strategy, where ecologically based flood and
coastal storm risk reduction is combined with non-structural and
structural solutions to keep people and property safe from coastal
hazards.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Multiple Lines of Defense. Courtesy of Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation
Natural infrastructure can provide multiple benefits to
communities, including a) protection, b) ecologically valuable habitat,
c) economic vitality, and d) recreation, as outlined in ASBPA's written
testimony.\2\ The ecological, economic and recreation components are
particularly important because this is what natural infrastructure
provides that hard infrastructure cannot. Restoring the natural
functions of a shoreline and the corresponding community benefits
should not be treated as lagniappe--a little free bonus--on a flood
protection project, it should be part of the central purpose of a
project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Brockbank, D. ``Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Hearing Testimony, July 10, 2019'', July 10, 2019 http://asbpa.org/
wpv2/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TI-Hearing-
Testimony_Final_ASBPA_Brockbank.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, natural infrastructure can provide protection to hard
infrastructure by extending its lifespan. For example, a dune system
with a structural (seawall) buried core, may be designed for the dune
to withstand a 10-year coastal storm event and the core to withstand a
100-year coastal storm event. The structure integrity of that seawall
is likely to last longer since it is not exposed to ongoing corrosive
effects of saltwater, wind and waves except for when it's exposed
during coastal storms greater than 10-year events.
Harder to quantify, but also important are the esthetic and safety
enhancements natural infrastructure can provide in supplementing hard
infrastructure. For example, even if a seawall provides a community all
the flood protection it needs, an exposed seawall adjoining a beach can
be considered an eyesore and can be dangerous for beach-goers to cross
or for children to play on. A dune system will maintain the beach
characteristics that define the community and that residents and
tourists expect.
However, there are challenges to combining natural infrastructure
with hard infrastructure. Most prominently is how hard infrastructure
can, if not designed properly, negatively impact the viability of
natural infrastructure. For example a seawall or bulkhead can
exacerbate the erosion of beach or marsh directly in front of it, due
to the reflection of wave energy hitting the structure. Even a buried
wall will adversely impact the beach and dune system as soon as it
becomes exposed. Similarly, a levee system that restricts interchange
of fresh and saltwater can fundamentally change the hydrology of a
coastal marsh system, accelerating marsh loss, changing locations of
oyster reefs and other biologically based natural infrastructure that
has a narrow salinity gradient.
b. One of the biggest structural challenges USACE has in
coordinating with local project sponsors is its project-based budgeting
system. Unique among federal agencies, USACE has a budget based nearly
entirely on project delivery, with very little programmatic or
unallocated staffing funds. Theoretically, this could help focus the
USACE to achieve projects. However, in ASBPA's experience, we have
found that this style of budgeting has led to a) an inability for USACE
to work with local sponsors in the early stages of project development;
b) challenges for USACE in working with local sponsors and stakeholders
once a project (or study) is authorized if it is not funded, and c)
USACE staff that could best be utilized to do outreach and coordination
with locals being ``tied'' to projects, rather than learning from local
communities.
USACE has an incredible wealth of technical knowledge and
expertise, but too often this cannot be accessed by non-federal
sponsors, unless they are actively working on an authorized and funded
federal project, or have requested support through one of USACE's small
``technical assistance programs''.
Similarly, USACE staff have challenges in providing insight and
guidance on locally funded natural infrastructure projects, other than
through the permitting and regulatory process. Local projects, from
small living shorelines, to major coastal land-rebuilding projects
could benefit from USACE's engineering review--particularly when they
are adjacent to and/or impacted by federal projects. USACE can
sometimes work this type of coordination into the project cost of an
existing project, particularly if a locally funded project is likely to
interact with a federal project, but that can appear to drive up the
cost of the federal project when the real benefit is to the local
project.
Unfortunately, at this time ASBPA does not have specific
recommendations for how to address this issue. Changing the USACE
budget process is incredibly complicated with many potential
operational challenges. We encourage the Transportation &
Infrastructure (T&I) committee to consider how budgeting plays a role
in the USACE's coordination with local sponsors and stakeholders, and
consider structural changes to improve the budgeting process. As the
Committee develops policy ideas, ASBPA would be honored to review and
make recommendations for how we believe those policies would play out
for coastal projects.
Finally, the current interpretation of the ``Federal Standard'' has
proved challenging for coordination between the Corps and non-federal
sponsors when working to restore and enhance natural infrastructure
along the coast. Local project sponsors who are taking the long view of
managing sediment and know that future ecosystem restoration and
natural infrastructure projects will need sediment, are too often
prevented from beneficially using sediment dredged by USACE. Local
sponsors are stymied by USACE interpretation of least coast disposal,
that only looks at current costs, and doesn't calculate the value of
the sediment (or the ``opportunity cost'' of beneficial placement) when
disposing of dredged material. The solution here is not to
fundamentally change or get rid of the federal standard, but to ensure
it is being implemented in a way that considers all future costs for
sediment needs that could otherwise be saved by beneficially using
dredge material rather than dumping it offshore.
Thank you for the questions and we look forward to working with the
committee to support Natural Infrastructure in a 2020 Water Resources
Development Act and other legislation coming from the T&I Committee.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego
Question 1. One of the sites being considered by your organization
is Prado Dam in my region. I also know that all sites are different.
What are the lessons learned from Lake Mendocino, and how can you apply
that to other reservoirs, like Prado?
Answer. The Lake Mendocino FIRO project has taught us many lessons
that will help us evaluate the potential viability of FIRO at other
reservoirs.
a. If storms that have the potential to produce flooding on the
Russian River can be predicted well enough 3-5 days ahead, then there
is potential for 10,000+ acre feet of water to be safely retained
behind the dam, pending a 5-day forecast of such a storm. This is
enough water for 10's of thousands of households for a year.
b. Floods on this river are cause by atmospheric river storms, and
there is enough skill in predicting the inflow into Lake Mendocino from
the precipitation produced by an atmospheric river, that FIRO could be
used to provide enhanced water supply reliability without adding flood
risk. Preliminary tests suggest that FIRO may also be able to improve
flood protection by encroaching into the water supply
(``conservation'') pool ahead of a storm.
c. Tools, including a prototype decision support system, have been
created for Lake Mondocino that show the risk of an atmospheric river
striking the region, and of inflow into the reservoir reaching a point
that requires release of some of the extra 10,000+ acre feet of water
ahead of the storm. With 5-days lead time, this water released would
have moved downstream to the ocean, out of harms way and restoring the
full flood pool in case it is needed for the incoming storm.
d. The formation of a steering committee that includes both water
supply operators, flood control operators, regulators and scientists,
charged with developing a workplan to carry out a FIRO viability
assessment can successfully integrate weather, hydrology and climate
science with engineering, water management and environment expertise to
carry out the necessary studies to assess the viability of FIRO at that
reservoir. And that such a committee can develop a culture that enables
all perspectives to be heard and to make rapid progress on the
technical problems.
e. Such a committee can develop enough credibility that it can
prepare and submit a major deviation request that passes full review by
USACE and is carried out as a test.
All of these lessons apply to Prado Dam, although vital
characteristics differ from lake Mendocino and require detailed
technical evaluations. These include the reservoir purpose being
primarily for flood control and being located in an urban area with
many people in the flood plain, whereas Lake Mendocino is rural and has
both a flood control and a water conservation pool. Endangered Salmon
are a concern for Lake Mendocino, while bird species are the primary
environmental issue at Prado. The Prado watershed is shorter in length,
steeper, and significant areas are covered by manmade impervious
surfaces. Some tools developed to improve weather forecasting for the
Lake Mendocino area will also prove useful in the region surrounding
Prado Dam, and elsewhere on the west coast, although additional
tailoring of the forecasting tools and associated decision support
system for each watershed will be required. Improved weather
forecasting will benefit water management throughout the state. Prado
Dam is being modified to substantially increase its flood control
capacity and FIRO can feed into a water control manual update that will
be needed anyhow due to the dam modifications.
Question 2. Why is forecast informed reservoir operations important
to consider, especially in the west?
Answer. Precipitation prediction has long been one of the toughest
challenges in weather forecasting and was not at a level of skill that
could justify its consideration in operating major reservoirs. Thus,
historically, most major reservoirs have been operated based on rules
focused on ``water on the ground,'' i.e., in snowpack, streams, rain
gauges or reservoirs, but not on weather forecasts. However, over
recent decades, weather prediction skill has advanced substantially.
Enough so to warrant consideration of the potential that now there is
enough skill in precipitation and streamflow forecasting that
operations at some reservoirs could safely consider them in day-to-day
operations. In addition, or possibly partly in response to this
improvement in forecasting, the USACE recently updated its water
management engineer regulation to allow for the possible use of
forecasts in operations. These developments have opened the door to
explore the possibility of using skillful weather forecasts to enable
reservoir operations decisions that could both increase water supply
reliability (without increasing flood risk), as well as increasing
flood mitigation capacity (without decreasing water supply
reliability), while also improving environmental outcomes.
The Western US experiences far more year-to-year variations in
annual precipitation than elsewhere in the nation, and yet also is home
to some of the most arid and yet also agriculturally productive, lands
in the nation. The West is home to both thriving economies and diverse
ecosystems that are at risk due to water supply reliability issues and
to flood. The modern water management system does a remarkable job in
supporting these. In some years this system still struggles when there
is either too much or too little precipitation, i.e., drought or flood.
Variations that are projected to become increasingly common and extreme
as climate changes, thus increasing vulnerabilities and making FIRO a
potentially useful climate adaptation method. Not only are the
potential benefits of FIRO in this region immense, it so happens that
forecasts of the heaviest precipitation events are more skillful in the
West (during the wet winter season) than anywhere else nationally.
Science has determined that atmospheric river storms are the cause of
most major flooding in the West and can provide 25-50% of the annual
precipitation each year. This allows science to focus on making better
observations and forecasts of this type of storm, specifically.
Offering true potential for predictions to reach a level of skill that
can enable FIRO to be viable at some reservoirs, at least those with
suitable characteristics and operating conditions.
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D., Director,
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California San Diego
Question 1. Could you please describe Scripps research work with
the Yuba Water Agency and California's Department of Water Resources?
Specifically, can you please explain how this work will complement
California's and Scripps' work with the Army Corps of Engineers on the
Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations program, and Yuba Water Agency's
plans to build the new secondary spillway at their dam, New Bullards
Bar Dam and Reservoir?
Answer. Scripps has begun working with Yuba Water Agency (YWA) and
California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) to develop a technical
workplan to assess the potential viability of FIRO on the combination
of New Bullards Bar on the Yuba River (operated by the Yuba Water
Agency) and Oroville Dam on the Feather River (operated by CDWR).
Information derived from the FIRO work is envisioned to provide
substantive input into updating the New Bullards Bar USACE Water
Control Manual, which was issued in 1972, and this update is expected
to provide support for potential benefits created from the construction
of the New Bullards Bar Secondary Spillway. (Background information
from YWA regarding the purpose and status of the secondary spillway is
provided at the end of this reply).
These rivers merge just downstream of the town of Marysville, which
is in the region of substantial historical floods in 1955, 1986 and
1997. The project brings local, state and federal agencies together in
a steering committee to plan and execute an effort that applies
research and innovation to enhance flood protection and aid water
management. The project will extend experience with FIRO to include the
complexities introduced by including two reservoirs, working in a
region influenced strongly by snow and snowpack and that is located
well inland from the coast. These factors, along with the sheer size of
these reservoirs and the fact they are ``Section 7'' reservoirs (i.e.,
not directly operated by USACE, but where USACE has a key role in
updating their water control manuals), differ substantially from
conditions at Lake Mendocino and Prado Dam, where FIRO studies are
underway. Thus, the Yuba-Feather FIRO project will extend the range of
conditions explored with USACE in terms of the potential applicability
of FIRO. In addition to developing the workplan, a handful of
preliminary technical studies are starting, including research on the
extreme storms that drive floods in the region, the role of snowmelt in
such flooding and soil moisture impacts on flow.
The development of a new spillway for New Bullards Bar, and the
changes at Oroville that could be triggered from its Comprehensive
Needs Assessment, each will require updates to their respective water
control manuals, a step involving USACE. A strategy of the Yuba-Feather
FIRO effort being envisioned is for it to produce outputs that can feed
directly into these water control manual updates that would incorporate
adaptive management methods informed by forecasts. Such an update would
be intended to introduce greater flexibility for both enhanced flood
mitigation capacity, as well as increased water supply reliability,
while benefitting ecosystems (see response to the second QFR from
Chairwoman Napolitano for a brief description of how FIRO works more
generally to achieve such goals).
The following is background information provided to me by Yuba
Water Agency regarding the secondary spillway:
``As a result of the devastating 1986 and 1997 Yuba County
floods resulting in the loss of life and destruction of
property, Yuba Water Agency has spent two decades studying and
making decisions on how to improve flood protection in Yuba
County. The result has been a decision to build a Secondary
Spillway that will enable earlier release of flood waters
entering the reservoir so that there is more flood space to
handle the peak flood flow. This will result in lower
downstream flow, thus improving flood protection. Additional
benefits include a totally independent redundant spillway that
can handle the flood of record in case the primary spillway is
inoperable, the capability for having higher storage in dry
periods that can enhance water supply and the Secondary
Spillway will enhance dam safety of New Bullards Bar Dam, which
is the 5th tallest in the US. The YWA board has authorized $11
million for the design and permitting of the Secondary Spillway
and the plan is to complete construction by 2025. In this era
of climatic change, the Secondary Spillway is the best way YWA
can improve climatic resiliency for the people of Yuba
County.''
[all]