- CONCEPTS FOR THE NEXT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT: PROMOTING RESILIENCY OF OUR NATION'S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

CONCEPTS FOR THE NEXT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT: PROMOTING
RESILIENCY OF OUR NATION'S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

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

(116-44)

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
__________

NOVEMBER 19, 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

41-989 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
JOHN KATKO, New York Georgia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana DINA TITUS, Nevada
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois JARED HUFFMAN, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania Vice Chair
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
Puerto Rico ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
ROSS SPANO, Florida GREG STANTON, Arizona
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
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
Vacancy

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California,
Chair
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida,
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida Vice Chair
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
DOUG LaMALFA, California ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
Puerto Rico HARLEY ROUDA, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

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........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:

Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 101

WITNESSES

Gerald E. Galloway, P.E., Ph.D., Brigadier General, U.S. Army
(Ret.), Acting Director, Center for Disaster Resilience, A.
James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland:

Oral statement............................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Ann C. Phillips, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Special
Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Adaptation and
Protection, Commonwealth of Virginia:

Oral statement............................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Ricardo S. Pineda, P.E., C.F.M., Chair, Association of State
Floodplain Managers, Supervising Water Resources Engineer,
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood
Management, on behalf of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers:

Oral statement............................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Louis A. Gritzo, Ph.D., Vice President of Research, FM Global:

Oral statement............................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Melissa Samet, Senior Water Resources Counsel, National Wildlife
Federation:

Oral statement............................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Julie A. Ufner, President, National Waterways Conference:

Oral statement............................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 60

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of November 18, 2019, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
President, Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano........... 102

APPENDIX

Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Gerald E. Galloway, P.E.,
Ph.D., Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.), Acting Director,
Center for Disaster Resilience, A. James Clark School of
Engineering, University of Maryland............................ 103
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Ann C. Phillips, Rear
Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Special Assistant to the Governor
for Coastal Adaptation and Protection, Commonwealth of Virginia 103
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Ricardo S. Pineda,
P.E., C.F.M., Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers,
Supervising Water Resources Engineer, California Department of
Water Resources, Division of Flood Management, on behalf of the
Association of State Floodplain Managers....................... 105
Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Ricardo S. Pineda, P.E.,
C.F.M., Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers,
Supervising Water Resources Engineer, California Department of
Water Resources, Division of Flood Management, on behalf of the
Association of State Floodplain Managers....................... 109
Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Louis A. Gritzo, Ph.D., Vice
President of Research, FM Global............................... 109
Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Melissa Samet, Senior Water
Resources Counsel, National Wildlife Federation................ 110
Questions from Hon. Bruce Westerman to Julie A. Ufner, President,
National Waterways Conference.................................. 111
Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Julie A. Ufner, President,
National Waterways Conference.................................. 113

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

November 15, 2019

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Concepts for the Next
Water Resources Development Act: Promoting Resiliency of our
Nation's Water Resources Infrastructure''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will
meet on Tuesday, November 19, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2167,
Rayburn House Office Building, to receive testimony related to
the role of resiliency in the construction, and operation and
maintenance of projects carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). This hearing will be one of several related
to the formulation of a new water resources development act
(WRDA) for 2020.

BACKGROUND

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
jurisdiction over the Corps' Civil Works program. 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, provides
disaster response and recovery during emergencies, and manages
a recreation program. To date, the Corps manages nearly 1,500
water resources projects.

ROLE OF RESILIENCY IN CORPS PLANNING AND OPERATIONS

Most of the Corps' facilities and infrastructure was
constructed in the early to mid-1900s. As a result,
approximately 95 percent of the dams managed by the Corps are
more than 30 years old, and half have reached or exceeded their
50-year project lives.\2\ The Corps' ability to manage its
portfolio of aging infrastructure is coupled with the need to
balance multiple authorized purposes and increased demands on
the infrastructure. The Corps' infrastructure also faces new
challenges in the frequency in which extreme weather events are
occurring. How the Corps factors the frequency of extreme
weather events and the role of resiliency in the operation,
maintenance, and construction of its facilities is crucial both
to the sustainability of the infrastructure as well as the
Corps' ongoing responsibility to meet the authorized purposes
of Corps projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.nap.edu/read/13508/chapter/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, the Corps issued its USACE Climate Preparedness
and Resilience Policy Statement, which declared that ``it is
the policy of USACE to integrate climate change preparedness
and resilience planning and actions in all activities for the
purpose of enhancing the resilience of our built and natural
water-resource infrastructure and the effectiveness of our
military support mission, and to reduce the potential
vulnerabilities of that infrastructure and those missions to
the effects of climate change and variability.'' \3\ In 2016,
the Corps further defined ``resiliency'' in its Resiliency
Initiative Roadmap as ``the concept to convey a holistic
approach to addressing threats and uncertainty from acute
hazards such as more frequent and/or stronger natural
disasters, man-made threats, changing conditions from
population shifts and climate change.'' \4\ In this Roadmap,
the Corps approaches resilience with four key actions:
``prepare, absorb, recover, and adapt.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/
Climate_Preparedness_and_Resilience/.
\4\ https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/
Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_1100-1-2.pdf?ver=2017-11-02-082317-
943.
\5\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECENT REPORTS, TRENDS, AND EXAMPLES OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS:

In 1990, Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act
which requires Federal agencies to report to the President and
the Congress (at least every 4 years) on ``the findings of the
Global Change Research Program and the scientific uncertainties
associated with those findings,'' the ``effects of global
change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy
production and use, land and water resources, transportation,
human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological
diversity,'' as well as ``current trends in global change, both
human-induced and natural, and project major trends for the
subsequent 25 to 100 years.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Pub. L. 101-606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four of these reports, called National Climate Assessments,
have been issued pursuant to the Global Change Research Act--
the most recent of which was issued in 2018 \7\ (and slightly
revised in 2019 \8\). This report highlights recent trends with
extreme weather events in the United States, including
prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, heavy
precipitation, and in some regions, severe floods and
droughts.\9\ In addition, this ``Fourth National Climate
Assessment'' highlighted how the intensity, frequency, and
duration of Atlantic hurricane activity has substantially
increased since the 1980s, including the number of strongest
(Category 4 and 5) storms during this period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/
NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf.
\8\ See https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/
NCA4_Errata_09October2019.pdf.
\9\ See https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-
findings/extreme-weather.
\10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the first eight months
(January to August) of 2019 were the wettest on record for the
nation.\11\ Most of the precipitation fell within the Missouri,
Mississippi, and Arkansas Rivers watershed, when a March 2019
``bomb cyclone'' rain event in the Midwest resulted in massive
flooding in the Missouri River Basin. At least 32 levee systems
were overtopped or completely under water and, at last count,
the Corps had discovered 114 breach sites in these systems.\12\
While the flooding subsided, plains snowmelt added more water
to the system. In April 2019, the Corps deployed six vessels in
the Southwest Pass at the mouth of the Mississippi River to
expedite dredging in the Gulf of Mexico in preparation for the
additional water flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.noaa.gov/news/january-through-august-was-wettest-
on-record-for-us.
\12\ https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/3/3340ee0b-
51ad-40d4-8a06-ea79491dde63/F631CE8BBCD6E3B31B0DB99C44DD65CD.u.s.-army-
corps-testimony-04.17.2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extreme hydrologic events during the first eight months
of 2019 continued at record-breaking levels as the water flowed
downstream. For example, the December 2018 to August 2019
period is now the longest known flood of record for the Lower
Mississippi River. In addition, the Corps has had to utilize
the Bonnet Carre Spillway in Louisiana to relieve flooding
impacts on the Lower Mississippi basin. The Corps' recent use
of the Spillway is notable for several reasons. First, its most
recent opening in May 2019 is only the 13th time the spillway
has been used since its construction in the 1930s. Second, its
use in 2018 and 2019 marks the first time the spillway has been
used in consecutive years, as well as the first time the
spillway has had more than one opening in a single year (Feb-
April and May-July 2019).\13\ The Mississippi River in Baton
Rouge had a record of 211 days above flood stage for most of
2019, easily breaking the previous record set by the Great
Flood of 1927 (of 135 days).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Mississippi-River-
Flood-Control/Bonnet-Carre-Spillway-Overview/Spillway-Operation-
Information/.
\14\ https://www.weather.gov/lix/ms_flood_history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE: ARMY CORPS AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE

As noted above, the Corps has constructed and continues to
operate and maintain critical flood control, navigation, and
environmental restoration projects throughout the Nation.
However, several notable climatic events, such as the hurricane
seasons of 2005 (Katrina and Rita), 2012 (Superstorm Sandy),
and 2017 (Harvey, Irma, and Maria), and the Midwest flooding of
2018 and 2019, have highlighted the challenges of continuously
operating Corps projects at their authorized purpose when faced
with extreme weather events.
This hearing is intended to examine how concepts of
resilience are incorporated in the planning, design,
construction, and operation and maintenance of existing
projects, and how the Corps' existing infrastructure is managed
both to address authorized purposes as well as meet potential
future extreme hydrologic conditions.

WITNESSES

LGerald E. Galloway, PE, PhD, Brigadier General
(US Army-Retired), Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of
Engineering, University of Maryland
LAnn Phillips, Rear Admiral (US Navy-Retired),
Special Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Adaptation and
Protection, Commonwealth of Virginia
LRicardo S. Pineda, PE, CFM, Chair, Association of
State Floodplain Managers, Supervising Engineer Water
Resources, California Department of Water Resources Division of
Flood Management, on behalf of the Association of State
Floodplain Managers
LLouis Gritzo, Ph.D, Vice President, FM Global
Research Manager
LMelissa Samet, Senior Water Resources Counsel,
National Wildlife Federation
LJulie Ufner, President, National Waterways
Conference

CONCEPTS FOR THE NEXT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT: PROMOTING
RESILIENCY OF OUR NATION'S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

----------

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2019

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn, Hon. Grace F. Napolitano (Chairwoman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano, DeFazio, Mucarsel-
Powell, Johnson of Texas, Garamendi, Huffman, Lowenthal,
Carbajal, Espaillat, Fletcher, Finkenauer, Delgado, Craig,
Rouda, Wilson, Lynch, Malinowski; Westerman, Massie, Woodall,
Babin, Graves of Louisiana, Bost, Weber, LaMalfa, Mast, Palmer,
and Gonzalez-Colon.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning everybody. This meeting is
called to order.
And today's hearing focuses on the role of resiliency in
assessing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure. 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 to ask questions. No objection? So ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized
to declare a recess during today's hearing. And without
objection, so ordered.
The Corps has defined resiliency as a holistic approach to
addressing threats and uncertainty from acute hazards. These
hazards include more frequent and stronger natural disasters,
man-made threats, changing conditions from population shifts
and climate change, good old climate change. The Corps is the
largest water manager in the Nation, so it is important for us
to understand how the Corps manages its inventory of projects
in light of a changing climate, including how it builds
resiliency into its decisionmaking. This will be a critical
discussion in the formation of a new Water Resources
Development Act, WRDA. We must also keep in mind the funding
increases caused by disasters.
I am already having a discussion of aging infrastructure,
changing hydrological conditions, and how we can better respond
to these changes in my district in southern California and
throughout the Nation. We have several Corps facilities,
including Whittier Narrows Dam. It is part of the Los Angeles
County Drainage Area Flood Control System, which collects the
runoff from the upstream watershed of the San Gabriel River and
controls downstream releases to millions of people. Like many
Corps facilities, it is over 50 years old--62 to be exact. It
is classified by the Corps as a Dam Safety Action
Classification 1, the highest classification, because of its
potential risk to downstream populations should it fail.
I am working closely with the Corps to ensure the dam
safety work is started and completed, after nearly 15 years
working on it at the Whittier Narrows, to protect our
communities from the threats of today and the future threats of
climate change. We are also pushing for another important
reason, and that is the ability to use Whittier Narrows and
other water infrastructure like the Prado Dam to meet the
future water needs of the community. We cannot do this if they
fall apart or are in danger of failure.
In southern California, over half of our water supply is
imported from the Bay Delta or the Colorado River. We
experience frequent droughts. So we want to be able to utilize
existing infrastructure and operate them in a way that meets
existing authorized purposes, but also consider other needs
like groundwater recharge and water supply. An example of this
is with Prado Dam as a potential pilot project for the
forecast-informed reservoir operations. This project helped to
conserve 12,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Mendocino earlier
this year by relying on better forecasting to help guide
operations.
And we recognize that what resiliency means for California
will be different than what it means for the Midwest or the
eastern seaboard. However, because the Corps projects have a
real impact on everyday lives and livelihood of American
families and on our local, regional, and national economy, it
is important that the Corps consider resiliency as part of its
mission every day.
So I thank the witnesses for being here today and look
forward to hearing 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 Corps has defined resiliency as ``a holistic approach to
addressing threats and uncertainty from acute hazards.'' These hazards
include more frequent and stronger natural disasters, man-made threats,
changing conditions from population shifts, and climate change.
The Corps is the largest water manager in the nation; so it is
important for us to understand how the Corps manages its inventory of
projects in light of a changing climate, including how it builds
resiliency into its decision making. This will be a critical discussion
in the formulation of a new water resources development act.
I am already having this discussion of aging infrastructure,
changing hydrologic conditions, and how we can better respond to these
changes in my district in Southern California.
We have several Corps facilities, including the Whittier Narrows
Dam. It is part of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area flood control
system, which collects runoff from the upstream watershed of the San
Gabriel River, and controls releases downstream.
Like many Corps facilities, it is over 50 years old--62 to be
exact. It is classified by the Corps as a Dam Safety Action
Classification-1--the highest classification, because of the potential
risks to downstream populations should it fail. I am working closely
with the Corps to ensure that the Dam Safety work is started and
completed at Whittier Narrows to protect our communities from the
threats of today, and the future threats of climate change.
We are also pushing for this work for another important reason, the
ability to utilize Whittier Narrows, and other water infrastructure,
like Prado Dam, to meet the future needs in the community. We cannot do
this if they are falling apart.
In Southern California, over half of our water supply is imported
from the Bay Delta or the Colorado River. We experience frequent
droughts. We want to be able to utilize existing infrastructure and
operate them in a way that meets existing authorized purposes, but also
considers other needs, like groundwater recharge and water supply.
An example of this is with Prado Dam as a potential pilot project
for the Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations. This project helped to
conserve 12,000 acre-feet of water at Lake Mendocino earlier this year
by relying on better forecasting to help guide operations.
I recognize that what resiliency means for California will be
different than what it means for the Midwest, or the Eastern seaboard.
However, because Corps projects have a real impact on the everyday
lives and livelihoods of American families, and on our local, regional,
and national economy, it is important that Corps considers resiliency
as part of its mission every day.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.

Mrs. Napolitano. And at this time, I am pleased to yield to
my colleague, ranking member of our subcommittee, my good
friend Mr. Westerman, for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano. And I want
to thank all of today's witnesses and especially Ms. Ufner in
particular, who I understand just recently took over for the
National Waterways Conference. And I would also like to take a
moment to thank Amy Larson, the outgoing president of the
conference, for her many years of work on behalf of inland
navigation, flood control and water supply. Those are interests
that are important and critical to constituents in my home
State and all around the country.
The Army Corps of Engineers is the Nation's largest owner
of water resource projects, as the chairwoman said, and they
manage more than 1,500 projects. This includes being the
largest generator of hydropower in the Nation, providing water
storage opportunities to cities and industry, regulating
continued operation and development of navigable waters, and
providing disaster response and recovery during emergencies,
among other issues. All told, these missions protect our
citizens and ensure that our local and national economies
thrive. Therefore, it is imperative to the millions of
Americans who rely on these projects that we ensure they are
operating well into the future and serving the purposes for
which they were developed.
But as we know, the state of our water resource
infrastructure is very poor. Most of the infrastructure was
built many, many decades in the past and has not been
adequately maintained. One of the most oft-cited statistics in
this subcommittee, the American Society of Civil Engineers has
given water infrastructure a D-plus grade.
I know how important this infrastructure is. Earlier this
summer, hundreds of homes in my home State of Arkansas were
affected by the flooding. Bridges were closed and barge traffic
was stopped. At one point, this was costing my home State over
$20 million in economic losses every day.
Over the past several appropriations cycles, including
supplemental emergency funding bills, the Corps Civil Works
program has never been flusher with funding, well over $15
billion in the last 2 fiscal years alone. We need to
expeditiously turn this funding around in order to rebuild and
improve our water resources infrastructure. But any
conversation about resiliency planning for the future is moot
if we cannot get any of these critical water resources
infrastructure projects completed and delivered effectively and
efficiently. The simple fact of the matter is that a project
cannot be resilient unless and until it is built.
While I do look forward to today's discussion on resiliency
planning, I want to strongly emphasize that a conversation
about resiliency and planning for the future means nothing if
the Corps is not completing projects currently on the books,
including the Corps' emergency response and repair obligations.
So I hope at a future hearing we can discuss in greater detail
ways to make the agency more efficient and effective in
completing projects. We must ensure that the Corps is truly
fulfilling obligations after disasters hit and get communities
back on their feet while being good stewards of scarce taxpayer
dollars.
With all that said, I will say that I was pleasantly
surprised last week to get an update from the Little Rock Corps
office that they were making progress fixing a levee and
restoring a pumping station way ahead of their initial proposed
schedule. This should be the rule and not the exception. And I
want to say thank you to Colonel Noe and the folks on his staff
who are actually getting the job done and making progress.
I believe that we need to continue to work to reduce
project vulnerabilities from future flood and storm events. In
doing so, I believe in a few guiding principles. Non-Federal
sponsors and the Army Corps need to have equal seats at the
table and act as partners. Requirements should not be imposed
on sponsors without their buy-in. Resilience is not a one-size-
fits-all framework. It must be considerate of the local
geography and climate and the local industry and economy. What
works in California does not work in Arkansas. And we must be
proactive with regards to our aging infrastructure.
Over the past 6 years, the committee has passed three
WRDAs, authorizing approximately $56 billion worth of projects
that proactively address ecosystem restoration initiatives,
flood risk reduction efforts and hurricane and storm risk
reduction projects and policies to help ensure a more resilient
Nation. Similarly, the most recent WRDA included in the
America's Water Infrastructure Act in 2018 authorized seven
studies for flood risk reduction, authorized and modified
several projects for construction of ecosystem restoration and
storm damage reduction and flood risk management projects. They
required a study on urban flooding and a report on storm
mitigation projects in areas where significant risks for future
extreme weather events are likely; required a report on North
Atlantic coastal resiliency with considerations to current,
near- and long-term predicted sea levels and storm strengths;
and promoted natural and nature-based features in water
resource project development, among many other provisions.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives and suggestions
from our witnesses here today, as we look to inform our next
WRDA bill.
[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. I want to thank all of today's
witnesses, and Ms. Ufner in particular, who I understand just recently
took over the National Waterways Conference. I'd also like to take a
moment to thank Amy Larsen, outgoing president of the Conference, for
her many years of work on behalf of inland navigation, flood control,
and water supply interests--all of which are critical to constituents
in my home state.
The Army Corps of Engineers is the Nation's largest owner of water
resources projects--managing more than 1,500 projects. This includes
being the largest generator of hydropower in the Nation, providing
water storage opportunities to cities and industry, regulating
continued operation and development in navigable waters, and providing
disaster response and recovery during emergencies, among others.
All told, these missions protect our citizens and ensure that our
local and national economies thrive. Therefore, it is imperative to the
millions of Americans who rely on these projects that we ensure they
are operating well into the future and serving the purposes for which
they were developed.
But as we know, the state of our water resources infrastructure is
very poor. Most of this infrastructure was built many, many decades in
the past and has not been adequately maintained. In one of the most
oft-cited statistics in this subcommittee, the American Society of
Civil Engineers has given water infrastructure a D+.
I know how important this infrastructure is. Earlier this summer,
hundreds of homes in my home state of Arkansas were affected by the
flooding, bridges were closed, and barge traffic was stopped. At one
point this was costing my home state over $20 million in economic
losses every day.
Over the past several appropriations cycles, including supplemental
emergency funding bills, the Corps Civil Works program has never been
flusher with funding--well over $15 billion in the last two fiscal
years alone. We need to expeditiously turn this funding around in order
to rebuild and improve our water resources infrastructure.
But any conversation about resiliency planning for the future is
moot if we can't get any of these critical water resources
infrastructure projects completed and delivered effectively and
efficiently. The simple fact of the matter is that a project can't be
resilient, unless and until it's built.
While I do look forward to today's discussion on resiliency
planning, I want to strongly emphasize that a conversation about
resiliency and planning for the future means nothing if the Corps is
not completing projects currently on the books, including the Corps'
emergency response and repair obligations. So, I hope at a future
hearing we can discuss, in greater detail, ways to make the agency more
efficient and effective in completing projects.
We must ensure that the Corps is truly fulfilling its obligations
after disasters hit, and to get communities back on their feet, while
being good stewards of scarce taxpayers' dollars.
That being said, I believe that we need to continue to work to
reduce project vulnerabilities from future flood and storm events. In
doing so, I believe in a few guiding principles. Non-federal sponsors
and the Army Corps need to have equal seats at the table and act as
partners--requirements should not be imposed on sponsors without their
buy-in. Resilience is not a one-size-fits-all framework; it must be
considerate of the local geography and climate, and the local industry
and economy. What works in California doesn't work in Arkansas. And we
must be proactive with regards to our aging infrastructure.
Over the past six years, the Committee has passed three WRDAs--
authorizing approximately $56 billion worth of projects--that
proactively address ecosystem restoration initiatives, flood risk
reduction efforts, and hurricane and storm risk reduction projects and
policies to help ensure a more resilient Nation.
Similarly, the most recent WRDA, included in the America's Water
Infrastructure Act in 2018 authorized 7 studies for flood risk
reduction; authorized and modified several projects for construction of
ecosystem restoration, storm damage reduction, and flood risk
management projects; required a study on urban flooding and a report on
flood and storm mitigation projects in areas where significant risk for
future extreme weather events are likely; required a report on North
Atlantic coastal resiliency with considerations to current, near, and
long-term predicted sea levels and storm strengths; and promoted
natural and nature-based features in water resources project
development, among many other provisions.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives and suggestions from our
witnesses here today as we look to inform our next WRDA bill.

Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. Again, thank you for
holding this hearing as we work toward reauthorizing the Water
Resources Development Act next year.
This is a perspective that we have not spent a lot of time
looking at. And I certainly share the gentleman's concerns
about the efficiency in delivering projects and, you know, it
seems that the Corps' capabilities of doing that vary by
district around the country. So we will get into those issues,
I assure him, when we get to authorization.
But we also have to look at whether or not there are some
who do not believe in climate change. But we are having an
awful lot of severe weather events. The three largest rainfall
events on record in the U.S. happened in the last 3 years. The
Lower Mississippi River set the record for longest known flood
from December 2018 to August 2019. Hurricanes and extreme
hydrologic events are no longer an exception, they are becoming
the norm. And it is very expensive, if you just want to look at
it from a hard fiscal point of view. Seventy-five percent of
the disasters are related to floods, and flood losses have
averaged $8 billion a year. So this is something we need to
deal with and get ahead of as much as possible.
Structures are not the only answer. Yes, structures need to
have integrity and also, you know, a lot of the Corps'
infrastructure is aging. Locks are failing on the inland
waterways. We have dams that are questionable for flood
control. So we have to be looking at the structures we already
have, their integrity.
But then as we look at future issues, the question is
whether you want to use a structure, or you want to try and
mitigate by using more natural systems. And we will hear
something about that here today. So it is something that the
committee has not spent a lot of time on, and I am pleased that
it is the focus of today's hearing. But we will deal with the
regular nuts and bolts of the Corps at future hearings.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[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
Today's hearing deals with the resiliency of our water
infrastructure. Want to see the impacts of climate change? Look no
further than water. You can see this through sea level rise, glacier
melt, and extreme weather events through droughts, hurricanes, and
record rainfall. The three largest rainfall events on record in the
U.S. have occurred in the last three years. The Lower Mississippi River
set the record for longest known flood from December 2018 to August
2019. We've dealt with hurricanes Katrina, Florence, Matthew, Irma, and
Maria at a staggering pace.
Even if you don't believe that this is a result of climate change,
we can at least agree that these extreme hydrologic events are no
longer the exception and are now becoming the norm. Let's look at it
from a fiscal perspective: more than 75 percent of declared Federal
disasters are related to floods, and annual flood losses average almost
$8 billion with over 90 fatalities per year. In 2019 alone, we have had
10 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion
each across the United States. This includes 3 flooding events, 5
severe storm events, and 2 tropical cyclone events.
The Corps plays a crucial role in managing for these risks as the
largest water manager in the Nation. Investing in resiliency not only
helps to protect our communities but also helps reduce future spending
on disasters. We need to better prepare our communities to understand
the risks associated with extreme weather events. How we work with
academia through research and innovation is also key.
It is imperative that we support initiatives that work toward
reducing carbon emissions, combating rising sea levels, investing in
renewable energy, and building resilient infrastructure. I am
considering ways to do this across all areas of our jurisdiction.
Whether its reducing carbon emissions across all modes of
transportation or reducing greenhouse gas emissions from pipelines and
wastewater systems--we must do more.
As this committee discusses moving forward on a Water Resources
Development Act in the next year, ensuring that our communities are
dealing with and managing risk associated with extreme hydrologic
events is important and must be part of the discussion.
Thank you.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
We will now proceed to hear from the witnesses who will
testify. I thank all of you for being here, and welcome.
On the panel, we have Dr. Gerald E. Galloway, brigadier
general, U.S. Army, retired, Glenn L. Martin Institute
professor of engineering at the University of Maryland.
Welcome.
Ann Phillips, rear admiral, U.S. Navy, retired, special
assistant to the Governor for coastal adaptation and
protection, Commonwealth of Virginia. Welcome.
Ricardo Pineda, P.E., C.F.M., supervising water resources
engineer, California Department of Water Resources, Division of
Flood Management, on behalf of the Association of State
Floodplain Managers. Welcome, sir.
Dr. Louis Gritzo, vice president of research, FM Global,
welcome.
Melissa Samet, senior water resources counsel, National
Wildlife Federation. Welcome, ma'am.
And Julie Ufner, president, National Waterways Conference.
Welcome, ma'am.
And without objection, your prepared statements will be
entered into the record. And all witnesses are asked to limit
their remarks to 5 minutes.
And Dr. Galloway, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF GERALD E. GALLOWAY, P.E., Ph.D., BRIGADIER
GENERAL, U.S. ARMY (RET.), ACTING DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DISASTER
RESILIENCE, A. JAMES CLARK SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND; ANN C. PHILLIPS, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY (RET.),
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR COASTAL ADAPTATION AND
PROTECTION, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; RICARDO S. PINEDA, P.E.,
C.F.M., CHAIR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS,
SUPERVISING WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FLOOD MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; LOUIS A. GRITZO,
Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH, FM GLOBAL; MELISSA SAMET,
SENIOR WATER RESOURCES COUNSEL, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION;
AND JULIE A. UFNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE

General Galloway. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Westerman, members of the committee, it is a distinct pleasure
for me to be here today for this very timely hearing.
I am professor of engineering and I am also acting director
of the Center for Disaster Resilience at the Clark School of
Engineering at the University of Maryland. I came to Maryland
from a 38-year career in the Army and 8 years' service in the
Federal Government, most of which has been associated with
water resources management.
In 1993 and 1994, I was privileged to work in the White
House to lead an interagency study of the causes of the great
Mississippi River flood of 1993, and to make recommendations to
the President concerning the Nation's flood plain management.
And more recently, I have had an opportunity as a member of the
National Academy of Engineering to participate in two studies
defining the importance of using resilience principles to
better deal with growing natural disasters.
Resilience in the water world requires an ability to
identify the growing risks that face us, to plan and prepare to
deal with these risks, absorb the impact of a major hazard
event without collapse, take a hit and still stand on your
feet, and then come back better after the event because you
have prepared before the disaster for this. It is a new
approach to dealing with these kinds of disasters.
Since 1936, millions of Americans have been protected from
the disastrous consequences of floods by projects authorized
and funded by this Congress, yet we are seeing flood losses
continuing to increase.
Today, we face a turning point as the combination of
pressure for development, deteriorating infrastructure reaching
the end of its usable life, failure to complete flood damage
reduction projects that are waiting in line, and changes in
climate and weather place major challenges in front of us. You
do not have to look more than at the 2019 Midwest floods and
the Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2017 to provide a
glimpse at the vivid proof of the power of nature.
We also face a long-ignored and growing challenge of our
flooding in urban areas, where considerable losses occur on a
repetitive basis as a result of our inability of outdated and
undersized drainage systems to handle the increasing number of
heavy precipitation events that we are seeing, as opposed to
just the riverine events. In 2006, as many of you know,
Constitution Avenue in Washington was under 3 feet of water.
And in 2014, Metro Detroit suffered a major rainfall event that
cost $1.8 billion, not from rivers but from the rainfall. Much
of this is caught in the gap between flood and stormwater
management and exacerbates an already inequitable treatment in
providing flood risk reduction in low-income areas in these
urban and rural communities.
There is a great opportunity ahead to incorporate
resilience principles to modernize and make more flexible the
development of water resource infrastructure and its associated
management. From 1936 on, Congress has worked hard to do the
right thing. Now is the time to replace 20th-century approaches
with 21st-century resilience principles.
Building resilience to flooding will require recognition
that all projects will not be able to be fully funded at the
level of protection or service desired. You just cannot build
to the supreme heights that many people would like to have. And
as a result, planning for emergency measures and the
possibility of flooding beyond the project design must be
included in projects, and funding for that planning must be
provided as the project is designed. It is going to take an
extra effort in planning.
We must see coordination across all levels of Government in
project development, not just in organizational silos. This
will require breaking down barriers among agencies and their
programs to maximize project effectiveness. Just as you all are
doing with the WRDA 2018 review, Federal regulations on where
USACE can carry on flood projects, the 800 cubic feet/second
rule that came up, it is very important that we do let the
agencies work together. Congress must remove its restrictions
on USACE use of the more modern and broader-based principles,
requirements, and guidelines for project justification. These
restrictions on use of PR&G do not make sense anymore, restrict
full consideration of social and environmental flood risk
reduction benefits and limit project innovation, and fail the
economically less fortunate.
Reports are made on flood disasters as they occur, but
little is done to implement most of these recommendations found
in the reports. Disaster preparation and resilience requires
consideration of lessons learned as they are presented.
Lastly, resilience cannot be obtained if there is no
funding. And this is something you all are well aware of. It is
a challenge everywhere we go, that smaller communities cannot
handle this.
This is a great opportunity ahead and I look forward to
helping in any way that I can. Thank you.
[Mr. Galloway's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Gerald E. Galloway, P.E., Ph.D., Brigadier
General, U.S. Army (Ret.), Acting Director, Center for Disaster
Resilience, A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of
Maryland
Chairperson Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, Members of the
Committee. It is a distinct privilege to participate in this important
and timely hearing and I want to thank the Committee for the
opportunity. I am Gerald E. Galloway, a Glenn L. Martin Institute
Professor of Engineering and Acting Director, Center for Disaster
Resilience at the A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of
Maryland, where I teach and do research in water resources and natural
disaster management. I came to that position following a 38-year career
in the US Army and eight years service in the federal government, most
of which was associated with water resources management. I served for
three years as District Engineer for the Corps of Engineers in
Vicksburg, MS and later, for seven years as a member of the Mississippi
River Commission. From 2009-2018 I served as a member of the Governor
of Louisiana's Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration
and Conservation and from 2016 to date as a member of the Maryland
Coast Smart Council. I am currently a member of the Advisory Board of
the Center of Climate and Security, and Vice Chair of the CNA Military
Advisory Board dealing with climate change and national security. In
1993 and 1994, I was privileged to be assigned to the White House to
lead an interagency study, Sharing the Challenge, of the causes of the
Great Mississippi River Flood of 1993 and to make recommendations to
the President concerning the nation's floodplain management program.\1\
More recently, I have had the opportunity as a member of the National
Academy of Engineering to participate in two studies defining and
discussing the importance of building resilience in our nation as a
means of reducing the impacts of natural and anthropogenic disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, Executive
Office of the President. 1994. Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain
Management into the 21st Century. Washington, GPO. (available at http:/
/www.floods.org/Publications/free.asp)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our nation has been dealing with natural disasters over its entire
history. As technology changes we see more opportunities for
anthropogenic disasters. Over the last several decades we have
witnessed an increase in the severity and length of water related
disasters and while they affect all aspects of water resources
infrastructure--water supply, navigation, hydropower, environmental
sustainability, etc., in the interest of time, I will limit my
testimony to discussing the challenges we face in dealing with flood
risk and how the 21st century is and will be requiring the nation to
rely heavily on resilience to deal with these increasing challenges.
In 1936, the US Congress passed a flood control act, launching the
federal government into a major effort to reduce flood losses that were
occurring throughout the United States. Even though millions of
Americans have been protected from the disastrous consequences of
floods by projects authorized and funded by the Congress, flood damages
continue to increase. As we approached the present century, we began to
face a turning point as the combination of pressure for development,
frequently in unsuitable locations, deteriorating infrastructure,
failure to complete planned flood damage reduction efforts, and changes
in climate and weather threatened to place major challenges in front of
us. During the last decade of the 20th century major floods in the
United States and abroad caused nations around the world to move from
flood control to managing flood risk and recognizing that we must be
prepared to deal with these uncertain futures--to be resilient to what
comes. It is time to consider new concepts that will promote our
resilience in the managing our water resources infrastructure in
general and of our flood risks in particular.
The Future
Driving our future will be:

Significant changes in how the weather and climate are
affecting our nation and the world. 2020 will not look like 1936
weather-wise. The areas subject to flooding are increasing as sea level
rises and storm events grow in intensity and length. The 2020 Midwest
Floods, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2017 and the Detroit
Flood in 2014 provided vivid proof of the power of nature and how it is
changing.
Population growth and development in risk areas. Many
communities and states are not controlling development in high risk
areas when it is occurring and many people who move into such areas are
unaware of the risks they face
Deteriorating infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure
in which we have invested is reaching the end of its usable life and we
are not maintaining or updating it as needed. Many projects can no
longer deal with the flood threats they face today. Some of this
infrastructure was built under federal programs but much is the result
of decades of local construction and operation. In many areas there is
no comprehensive management of the complex system of dams, levees and
other structures that protect a watershed's residents and their
economy, Thousands of miles of levees do not meet national standards.
Growth in billion-dollar disasters. Although there have
been increases in the number of floods, the value of property in high
risk areas has also increased.
Inequitable treatment in providing flood risk reduction
to low-income communities This is most obvious in low-income areas
across the nation and results from the criteria we use to develop and
approve projects and programs.
The growing challenge of flooding in urban areas where
considerable losses occur on a repetitive basis as a result of an
inability of outdated and undersized systems to handle the increasing
number of heavy precipitation events as opposed to riverine flood
events. In 2006, Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC, was under three
feet of water from rainfall flooding the Federal Triangle. In 2014, the
Detroit, Michigan metro area suffered a major rainfall event that
caused over $1.8 Billion in damages.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In 2018 and 2019, the University of Maryland and the Texas A&M
University, NASEM, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and
the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies
prepared reports identifying the growing threat of urban flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resilience as an Answer
If we accept that we do face future significant flood threats and
do realize that we will not have the resources to address all flood
risks with structural projects, we must turn to resilience to help us
face reality. In 2009, nine federal agencies came to the National
Research Council of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and
Medicine (NASEM) and asked the NASEM to examine how attention to
resilience might assist in the reduction of the impacts of natural
disasters. In 2012, an Academy committee issued a report that defined
resilience as:

``The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from or
more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse
events.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington:
National Academy Press. 2012

Similar definitions began to shape programs of the government,
business and non-governmental organizations. Resilience requires, in
its preparation and planning phase, that those facing these disasters
adequately identify the hazards with which they might have to address
and develop the plans that they would have to make to deal with them.
As you will hear this morning from other panelists, the integration of
resilience into the day-to-day operations of government agencies at the
state and local level, businesses, and even non-governmental
organizations continues to grow.
Becoming resilient requires communities and those practicing
resilience in such areas as building infrastructure to follow a path
that leads to full consideration of what is necessary to be able to
recover from a disaster. It all begins with identifying the risks that
must be faced. You cannot be prepared to deal with a potential disaster
if you don't know what it might be. in looking at risks, the tendency
is to take the easiest path and deal with the ``get by'' approach. This
just doesn't work. Risk must be defined in its complete terms and
across the spectrum of consequences. In the flood world, all too often,
risk consideration is limited to what flood was last seen, rather than
the flood that could be most devastating. True resilience also requires
consideration of the impact of a flood on all elements of the community
as the interdependence of communities' health, social welfare,
environment, governance and economy are all closely tied to the total
well-being of the community.
The community must also develop a strategy for dealing with its
risk as it seeks to mitigate the consequence of a hazard event. It
frequently becomes obvious that a desired solution to deal with the
potential risk, e.g. no losses, cannot be accommodated with the
resources available to the community. The strategy must consider how to
handle a more severe event. Plans must be developed to deal with a
variety of conditions and clear decisions must be made on what is to be
implemented. Even if the ultimate plan cannot be funded, communities
must plan for what happens under those circumstance--e.g. the new levee
is not complete or is overtopped. How will the community survive? How
can steps taken ahead of time dampen these consequences to allow the
community to bounce back.
All the above actions require close cooperation and coordination
within the affected communities and the state and federal agencies that
are assisting them. This mean everybody must be at the table as they
develop their strategies and parochial turf issues must be avoided.
Promoting Resiliency of Our Nation's Water Resources Infrastructure
Bringing the concepts of resilience into the 21st-century
management our nation's water resources infrastructure will require
implementation of new ways of doing business.
Resilience requires:

Considerably greater cooperation and coordination among
federal agencies, among federal, state, tribal and local entities, and
ultimately, considerably more refined all-hands effort in dealing with
specific problems. In a 1989 report, the western governors identified
some major causes of conflict and frustration with current federal
water policies, ``A principal characteristic of federal water policy is
that policies are made in an ad hoc, decentralized manner. No agency of
the executive branch or committee of Congress is responsible for
keeping an eye on the ``big picture.''

The late Chairman of this Committee, Congressman Jim Oberstar,
in 2009, indicated that ``the efforts of Federal agencies can overlap
and at times conflict, and currently, there is no body within the
Executive branch to provide substantive coordination or, if necessary,
resolution of disagreements among agencies to ensure needed
collaboration.'' He indicated that at that time, ``the diverse water
resources challenges throughout the United States are often studied,
planned, and managed in individual ``silos,'' independently of other
water areas and projects. Generally, this has resulted in local and
narrowly focused project objectives with little consideration of the
broader watersheds that surround these projects.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Honorable James L. 0berstar, Remarks before the USACE
Conference, ``Collaborating for A Sustainable Water Resources Future''
August 27, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having program goals and objectives that reflect the
needs of all sectors of the community. Chairman Oberstar also saw a
need to have a ``National--not a Federal--vision'' on how to meet
current water resource needs and how to address future water resource
needs and challenges.
Carrying out effective and inclusive planning at all
levels. Every community should have a resilience plan that is developed
in coordination with its partners--other government and all segments of
its population, but such planning requires funding and there is little
to be had.
What Can Be Done?
If resilience is to be feasible, problems must be confronted and
solved and not ignored. Following the Great 1993 Mississippi Flood
considerable attention initially was placed on acting on the
recommendations of the ``Sharing the Challenge'' report, including
management of levees at all levels, development of a comprehensive plan
for flood management, improving coordination of federal and state
coordination, etc. However, after three years, in the face of limited
support in the Congress, the Administration halted its efforts. In 2005
FEMA produced a report indicating that likely most non-federal levees
did not meet standards. The 2009, National Report on Levee Safety,
initiated following levee failures during Hurricane Katrina, reported a
similar condition in the nation's levees.\5\ Because of major flood
losses resulting from levee failures or overtopping during the 2008
Midwest floods. The Senate EPW Committee directed the Assistant
Secretary of the Army to prepare a report indicating the status of
implementation of the recommendations of the ``Sharing the Challenge
report. Although the submittal indicated that considerable work still
needed to be done no action was taken. Following the 2011 Midwest
flood, the Committee asked again for a report and following the
submittal no action was taken. Analysis of the levee failures in the
2019 Midwest flooding will likely result in a replication of previous
analyses and reports. Owners and operators of non-federal levees lack
the resources to deal with the aged and unsatisfactory levees, and the
arguments that exist over federal or state or local responsibilities
make it difficult to come up with a satisfactory solution as to where
to find resources to fill funding vacuums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS). 2009. Draft Report
to Congress on Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program.
Washington: US Army Corps of Engineers. Available at http://
www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ncls/docs/NCLS-Recommendation-
Report_012009_DRAFT.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies that create boundaries along agencies or between agencies
or hinder cooperative efforts and deprive those in need the assistance
they require make little sense. Action taken by Congress, in the 2018
WRDA, required review of a provision in the law that limits USACE's
authority to deal with flood situations in urban areas where the flow
is under 800 cubic feet/second. Removing this restriction could open
problem solutions to multiple agencies and create cooperative ventures.
Continuing reliance primarily on economic justification of projects
makes it difficult for those in rural and low-income areas to justify
projects that would give them considerable social and conceivably
health benefits. The recent NASEM studies of affordability of flood
insurance gives a very clear picture of the differential level of flood
protection under various economic situations and strong reason to
consider all factors in project justification. Congressional
restrictions on USACE use of more modern and broader based guidelines
for project justification do not make sense and restrict full
consideration of the flood risk reduction needs of the less fortunate.
In Conclusion
There is a great opportunity ahead to incorporate resilience
principles in the development of water resources infrastructure. From
1936 on Congress has worked hard to do the right thing. As we move in
the 21st-century, now is the time to do it.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Dr. Galloway.
Ms. Phillips, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Admiral Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman
Napolitano, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Westerman, members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
to you all today on this very important topic.
My name is Ann Phillips. I serve as the special assistant
to the Governor of Virginia for coastal adaptation and
protection. I am a retired surface warfare officer. I drove and
commanded ships for the United States Navy for 31 years,
retiring in 2014 as a rear admiral and commander of
Expeditionary Strike Group 2. Since then, I have been involved
in multiple efforts to highlight the impacts of climate change
on national security and now focus on preparing Virginia's
coastal infrastructure for the impact of sea level rise and
recurrent flooding.
Climate change has a significant impact on coastal
communities and Federal infrastructure in Virginia today. We
deal with water where we did not plan for it to be and that
impedes the expected pattern of our lives, commerce, and
national security in some form with increasing frequency.
This committee can help by aligning Corps planning
standards, feasibility studies, benefit-cost analysis processes
and by prioritizing environmental restoration and flood control
projects over or separately from navigation projects and
reducing the flood control project backlog to prioritize the
expanding needs of coastal States dealing with rising waters
and recurrent flooding.
In Virginia, we have over 10,000 miles of tidally
influenced shoreline, the eighth longest in the country as
defined NOAA, ranked just behind Texas. We have experienced
over 18 inches of relative sea level rise in 100 years and
expect to see that again by midcentury. Duration, severity, and
impacts of flooding have all increased substantially. We are
not simply preparing; we are already living with water.
We have a water-based economy, all at risk. Our
cornerstones are our Federal presence, arguably the largest
concentration in the Nation, including our largest naval base,
Naval Station Norfolk; the Port of Virginia, sixth largest
container port by traffic volume in the country; beach and
water-related tourism; aquaculture, fisheries, waterfront
properties and housing stock.
Virginia localities in the Commonwealth have partnered with
the Corps on two coastal storm risk management studies, both
recommended by the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study in
2015. The city of Norfolk completed their feasibility study
this year and has entered preconstruction engineering design
phase. The northern Virginia study, which includes Potomac
River from Great Falls to Prince William, started July 15 this
year. These studies help to further define the needs of
communities dealing with rising waters, but they do not give a
complete and comprehensive understanding of the impacts across
coastal Virginia. To do that, Virginia needs a full coastal
study. And we have the authorization from the 2018 Water
Resources Development Act. But we need Corps and this
committee's support to appropriate funds ultimately for this
work.
The protection of substantial critical national
infrastructure is at stake. Such studies must include Federal
and, in particular, DoD infrastructure, where applicable. Civil
Works studies typically do not include DoD infrastructure, due
to restrictions on funding sources.
Norfolk's study, as an example, did not include the impacts
to or outcomes from storm surge or recurrent flooding to Naval
Station Norfolk or Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads, as
related to impact on city infrastructure. Both of these are
within the boundaries of the city of Norfolk. Both are on the
Navy's list of most critical impacted facilities.
We have a further challenge in Virginia, in that the
Sewells Point tide gauge, our primary data source due to its
long historic record, based on observed data, now exceeds the
sea level rise projections of the Corps' preferred intermediate
curve. This means that analysis using the intermediate curve
can underestimate the rate of change and future impacts, which
could result in underengineered and underdesigned solutions
before projects get to the design and build phase. Using these
conservative curves, the Corps is shooting behind the duck. It
risks wasting Federal dollars in a tail chase to address an
accelerating problem.
Under Governor Ralph Northam, Virginia is taking bold and
substantive action to address this threat, assigning three
Executive orders directing creation of a coastal master plan,
establishing a council on environmental justice and setting
flood plain management requirements and planning standards for
State agencies. But even with strong State action, we cannot do
this alone. The work of this committee is vitally important to
protecting people and property.
This committee must help States organize and prioritize
flood control projects with the Corps, align Corps planning
standard studies and cost analysis processes, reduce the
backlog, again, and prioritize coastal States dealing with the
new challenges of rising waters and recurrent flooding.
Virginia is committed to building capacity for our coastal
communities and to collaborating with our Federal partners to
prepare for and build resilience to this threat. We have no
time to waste. My favorite saying: Time and tide wait for no
man.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
committee and I look forward to your questions.
[Ms. Phillips' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ann C. Phillips, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.),
Special Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Adaptation and
Protection, Commonwealth of Virginia
Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
to you today. It is a privilege to be before you at this hearing to
discuss this very important topic.
My name is Ann Phillips, and I currently have the honor to serve as
the Special Assistant to the Governor of Virginia for Coastal
Adaptation and Protection. I am a retired Surface Warfare Officer--I
drove and commanded ships for the United States Navy for 31 years,
served abroad in Guam and Lisbon, Portugal, and operated extensively
with NATO and Partnership for Peace nations. I retired in 2014 as a
Rear Admiral and Commander, Expeditionary Strike Group TWO. My
experience in coastal adaptation and protection, along with climate and
national security, stems from my work as Chair of the Surface Force
Working Group for the Navy's Task Force Climate Change while still on
active duty, and from my work since retiring, chairing the
Infrastructure Working Group for the Hampton Roads Intergovernmental
Sea Level Rise Pilot Planning Project from 2014 to 2016, as a member of
the Advisory Board of the Center for Climate and Security, and on the
Board of Directors for the Council on Strategic Risks.
Today, I've been asked to address the impact of the Water Resources
Development Act and ensuing US Army Corps of Engineers actions and
activities from the perspective of coastal states and coastal
communities, and how Virginia is preparing to adapt and protect its
coastal infrastructure from the impact of sea level rise and recurrent
flooding. Virginia's priorities are to identify critical infrastructure
that is vulnerable to rising waters and recurrent flooding; to
determine the best and most practical, innovative and cost effective
solutions to adapt and protect that infrastructure; to use creative and
less costly green or green-gray infrastructure approaches to protect
more dispersed assets and to ensure environmental equity for
underserved communities; and to leverage federal, state and local funds
to help make Coastal Virginia more resilient to climate change.
Setting The Stage
Climate change has a significant and intensifying impact on our
coastal communities in Virginia today. Rising sea levels lead to
recurrent nuisance flooding, caused by high tides, accompanied by wind,
and/or increased intensity and frequency of rainfall, or any
combination of the three. These circumstances intensify the impact of
coastal storms and hurricanes and the accompanying flooding and storm
surges. Coastal Virginia deals with water where we did not plan for it
to be, and that impedes the expected pattern of life, in some form,
nearly every day. From October 8th to October 13th, Hampton Roads
experienced above flood stage sunny-day flooding, caused in part by
storms off shore and wind from the North East, for 10 consecutive high
tide cycles over 5 days, impeding access and blocking traffic flow in
and around the region.\1\ This is our ``new normal''--it affects every
aspect of our lives in ways that we do not yet understand, or even
realize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Water Levels--NOAA Tides & Currents,'' accessed November 12,
2019, https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
waterlevels.html?id=8638610&units=standard&bdate=
20191005&edate=20191015&timezone=GMT&datum=MLLW&interval=6&action=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Virginia, we have over 10,000 miles of tidally-influenced
shoreline.\2\ Virginia has the eighth longest tidally-influenced
coastline in the country, ranked just behind the state of Texas.\3\ \4\
We have experienced over 18 inches of sea level rise in 100 years, as
indicated by NOAA Sewell's Point tide gauge at Pier Six, Naval Station
Norfolk. With an average of 4.66 mm of sea level rise per year,
Virginia has one of the highest rates of relative sea level rise change
of any state on the East Coast of the United States, including the Gulf
of Mexico.\5\ We are also experiencing land subsidence--most evident in
areas where there is heavy use of water from our aquifers. Land
subsidence varies across Coastal Virginia, and can range from as much
as 40% to as little as 0% of the observed relative sea level rise.\6\
Since the late 1990s, the duration, severity, and impacts of flooding
have all increased substantially.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MR Berman et al., ``Virginia--Shoreline Inventory Report:
Methods and Guidelines, SRAMSOE No. 450.'' (Comprehensive Coastal
Inventory Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 2016).
\3\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management, ``Shoreline Mileage of the
United States,'' 1975.
\4\ Berman et al., ``Virginia--Shoreline Inventory Report: Methods
and Guidelines, SRAMSOE No. 450.''
\5\ ``Sea Level Trends--NOAA Tides & Currents. Sewell's Point VA
Station.,'' 2019, https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
sltrends_station.shtml?id=8638610.
\6\ D. P. S. Bekaert et al., ``Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radar
Survey of Subsidence in Hampton Roads, Virginia (USA),'' Scientific
Reports 7, no. 1 (2017): 14752, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
15309-5.
\7\ T Ezer and L Atkinson, ``Sea Level Rise in Virginia--Causes,
Effects and Response,'' Virginia Journal of Science 66, no. 3 (2015):
355-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed Data Sea Level Rise Projections Exceed USACE Intermediate
Curve in Virginia
Current scientific projections, as documented by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science Sea Level Report Card, show that our sea
levels will continue to rise and the rate of rise will accelerate, such
that we expect an additional 18 inches of relative sea level rise by
mid-century. Of particular interest to this committee is that using
VIMS Sea Level Report Card, based on actual tide-gauge analysis for
Sewell's Point, current sea level rise projections through 2050 exceed
those of the USACE Intermediate curve (USACE-INT), the default curve
USACE uses for its analysis and Coastal Storm Risk Management
Studies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Norfolk, Virginia--Virginia Institute of Marine Science,''
Norfolk, Virginia Sea-Level Report Card, accessed July 17, 2019,
https://www.vims.edu/research/products/slrc/localities/nova/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this means is that any analysis using the USACE INT Curve is,
again by default, underestimating the rate of change, depth, and future
impacts, which results in under engineered and underestimated
solutions--before the projects enter design phase. In essence, by using
these very conservative SLR scenario-planning curves, and not
considering local analysis and rates of change, USACE is ``shooting
behind the duck''--wasting Federal dollars in a tail chase to address
an ever-expanding problem and delivering under-designed and under-
engineered outcomes, rather than getting ahead of them with risk-
informed analysis. While localities may work with USACE to use higher
sea level rise projections to accept less risk, any additional cost to
designed outcomes falls to the locality and is not shared under USACE
cost share provisions.
Virginia's Unique Risk
We have a water-based economy in Coastal Virginia. The cornerstones
of that economy are:

Our Federal presence, arguably the largest concentration
in the nation--in particular Department of Defense with Navy as the
largest service represented, and including the substantial commercial
industry surrounding military and commercial shipbuilding, maintenance
and repair
The Port of Virginia--large and expanding capacity with
multi-modal access reaching from the East Coast to west of the
Mississippi River
Beach and Water-related Tourism
Water-adjacent and dependent agriculture, aquaculture,
fisheries, commercial property, and housing stock

All of this is supported by critical public and private utility and
transportation infrastructure, as well as a substantial medical/
hospital presence, and the universities, schools, and public
infrastructure sustaining cities, counties and towns, along our coast.
Virginia's high military concentration is tied to the water by the
very nature of its mission, and at risk from the threat of sea level
rise and climate change impacts. In their 2016 report, ``The Military
on the Front Lines of Rising Seas,'' the Union of Concerned Scientists
found that a 3 foot increase in sea level rise would threaten 128
coastal DOD installations in the United States, 43% of which are Navy
facilities valued at roughly $100 billion.\9\ In its own 2019 ``Report
on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,'' the
Department found that 53 of its mission-critical facilities are
currently vulnerable to recurrent flooding, with 60 such facilities
vulnerable within the next 20 years. When other hazards from climate
change are considered (wildfire, drought, desertification), 79 total
DoD facilities are vulnerable at present. In Virginia, five Hampton
Roads area facilities are on the US Navy and US Air Force list of most
vulnerable infrastructure released in June 2019, including Naval Air
Station Norfolk, Naval Air Station Oceana, Naval Support Activity
Hampton Roads, Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads-Northwest Annex,
and Joint Base Langley-Eustis.\10\ A 2008 study by the Organization for
Co-operation and Economic Development, ranked the Hampton Roads
metropolitan area as the 10th most vulnerable in the world related to
the value of assets at risk from sea level rise.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas,''
Executive Summary (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2016), https://
www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/07/
front-lines-of-rising-seas-key-executive-summary.pdf.
\10\ United States Department of Defense, ``Report on Effects of a
Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,'' January 2019, https://
media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/29/2002084200/-1/-1/1/
CLIMATE-CHANGE-REPORT-2019.PDF.
\11\ RJ Nicholls et al., ``Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure
to Climate Extremes--Exposure Estimates,'' Environment Working Papers
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008.), http:/
/www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/
?cote=ENV/WKP(2007)1&doclanguage=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Defense and our federal partners are the largest
employers in the state \12\ and Virginia's percentage of gross domestic
product derived from the federal presence in the state is 8.9% (the
highest percentage of any state).\13\ Virginia also has the highest
rate of defense personnel spending of any state, and is second only to
California in defense contract spending and defense-related contract
spending. The Hampton Roads region hosts federal facilities that are
unique and not easily replicable in other locations, including our
largest Naval Base, Naval Station Norfolk, as well as the only shipyard
where we build aircraft carriers and one of only two places where we
build nuclear-powered submarines--Newport News Shipbuilding, owned by
Huntington Ingalls Industries. The City of Portsmouth is home to
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, one of only four Navy-owned and operated
nuclear repair shipyards in the United States, and very vulnerable to
flooding. Joint Base Langley-Eustis, with Fort Eustis in the City of
Newport News and Langley Air Force Base in the City of Hampton are also
vulnerable. Langley AFB, which deals with rising water as a matter of
routine, and has done considerable work to make its facilities
resilient, has taken up much of the overflow from the impact to
aviation training for the F-22 Strike Fighter from Tyndall Air Force
Base after Hurricane Michael's impact on that facility last year.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Virginia Statewide Community Profile'' (Virginia Employment
Commission, 2019). https://virginiawlmi.com/Portals/200/
Local%20Area%20Profiles/5101000000.pdf
\13\ ``Defense Spending by State, FY 2017'' (US Department of
Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, March 2019).
\14\ ``Tyndall AFB Personnel, F-22s Temporarily Relocate to Hawaii
and Alaska,'' U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, accessed July 17, 2019,
https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/
Article/1682655/tyndall-afb-personnel-f-22s-temporarily-relocate-to-
hawaii-and-alaska-bases/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eastern Shore of Virginia hosts NASA's Flight Facility at
Wallops Island, which includes the Virginia Space and Mid Atlantic
Regional Spaceport, NASA flight test facility, National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration and Federal Aviation Administration
facilities, and the Navy's Surface Combat Systems Center Range. These
facilities are unique. For example, the Navy Surface Combat Systems
Center Range, the only such test range on the East Coast of the United
States, supports the majority of new construction combat systems
training for the Fleet.
We also are home to the Port of Virginia, the third largest
container port on the East Coast and sixth busiest port by container
traffic volume in the United States. A multi-modal port with facilities
located in Hampton Roads in the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth and
Newport News, and with barge service to the Port of Richmond and an
Inland Port intermodal transfer facility in Front Royal, Virginia,\15\
the Port of Virginia is the only East Coast port with federal
authorization to dredge to a 55 foot channel depth, and generates a
total of $60 billion in economic activity for the Commonwealth.\16\
With a focus on sustainability, the Port of Virginia works to build
resilience, aligned with the surrounding communities. Much like the
regions' federal facilities, however, its future resilience is
inextricably linked to that of the surrounding cities and other
localities that support and provide its critical utilities,
transportation, logistics, and supply chain infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``NAFTA Region Container Traffic--2017 Port Rankings by
TEU's'' (American Association of Port Authorities, 2017).
\16\ ``About the Port of Virginia,'' accessed July 18, 2019, http:/
/www.portofvirginia.com/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Virginia's substantial tourism industry generates direct
travel-related expenditures exceeding $5.2 billion in our Coastal
region \17\. Virginia boasts wide beaches, access to a myriad of water
sports and recreational activities, as well as natural tidal
marshlands, unique barrier island structures, and we are a critical
stopover on the North Atlantic migratory bird flyway, all incredible
facilities and natural amenities, and all at extreme risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``The Economic Impact of Domestic Travel on Virginia Counties
2017: A Study Prepared for Virginia Tourism Authority'' (U.S. Travel
Association, August 2018), https://www.vatc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/2017-Economic-Impact-of-Domestic-Travel-on-
Virginia-and-Localities.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our substantial aquaculture and wild fishing industries generate
over $1.4 billion in annual sales,\18\ including oysters, crabs, and
the largest clam industry on the East Coast of the United States.\19\
These industries are vulnerable to both sea level rise and ocean
acidification and warming. The infrastructure necessary for their
success ties them to low-lying areas near the water--vulnerable to
flooding--and accessibility to workplaces and docks is becoming a
challenge during the more frequent high tide flooding that impacts road
access, as well as activities on the waterfront. Ocean acidification
and warming will affect the ability of some species to survive and
reproduce in Coastal Virginia waters--in particular shellfish,
endangering the wild-caught and grown seafood industry treasured by the
Chesapeake Bay region.\20\ For Virginia, this may be only a matter of
time as such impacts have already been observed in the Pacific
Northwest region of the United States, costing that region over $110
million dollars and putting 3,200 jobs at risk.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Fisheries Economics of the United States 2016'' (U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 2018),
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/content/fisheries-economics-united-
states-2016.
\19\ Thomas J. Murray and Karen Hudson, ``Economic Activity
Associated with Shellfish Aquaculture in Virginia 2012,'' https://
www.vims.edu/research/units/centerspartners/map/
aquaculture/docs_aqua/MRR2013_4.pdf.
\20\ ``Virginia Is Highly Vulnerable to Ocean Acidification''
(Natural Resources Defense Council adopted from Ekstrom et al., 2015,
February 2015), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/state-
vulnerability-VA.pdf.
\21\ ``New Study: Rapid Ocean Acidification Threatens Coastal
Economies in 15 States,'' 2015. NRDC Press Release https://
www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, our waterfront property and housing stock is a challenge
we share with many other coastal states. Within the next 30 years--the
lifespan of a typical mortgage--as many as 311,000 coastal homes in the
lower 48 states with a collective market value of about $117.5 billion
in today's dollars will be at risk of chronic flooding (more than 26
times a year or about every other week). By the end of the century, 2.4
million homes and 107,000 commercial properties currently worth more
than $1 trillion altogether could be at risk, with Virginia's coastal
real estate significantly exposed. The expected Virginia homes at risk
in 2045 currently contribute about $23 million in annual property tax
revenue. The homes at risk by 2100 currently contribute roughly $342
million collectively in annual property tax revenue.\22\ In an ongoing
Comprehensive Sea Level Rise and Recurrent Flooding Study conducted by
the City of Virginia Beach and Dewberry, the annualized losses today in
that City alone result in residential damages of $26 million annually
due to coastal flooding events. If no action is taken, with 1.5 feet of
additional sea level rise, expected within 20-30 years, that number
increases to $77 million annually, and with 3 feet of additional sea
level rise, forecast within 60-70 years, to $329 million annually, a
12-fold + increase.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the
Implications for US Coastal Real Estate'' (Union of Concerned
Scientists, June 2018), https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-
warming-impacts/sea-level-rise-chronic-floods-and-us-coastal-real-
estate-implications.
\23\ CJ Bodnar, ``Comprehensive Sea Level Rise and Recurrent Flood
Study'' (Dewberry and City of Virginia Beach, May 2019), https://
www.vbgov.com/government/departments/public-works/
comp-sea-level-rise/Documents/slr-update-ccouncil-5-7-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of real estate value, research reported in the Journal of
Financial Economics shows homes exposed to sea level rise are selling
for approximately 7% less than equivalent properties that are unexposed
to sea level rise and equidistant from the beach. Broken down in more
detail, homes that may be inundated with one foot of sea level rise,
trade at a 14.7% discount, and properties expected to be inundated
after 2-3 feet of sea level rise, at a 13.8% discount.\24\ This places
Coastal cities and other localities under pressure to determine
solutions to not only reduce the risk to these vulnerable properties,
but to reduce the risk to their property tax base, without which they
cannot remain viable. Yet coastal communities face challenges from
another perspective, as the Credit Ratings agencies have begun to take
notice of the risks carried by localities exposed to rising waters. The
credit rating agencies are asking for detailed plans about localities'
strategies to adapt and mitigate the risk as a criterion for retaining
their credit and bond rating. The paradox is that some localities find
themselves unable to issue any more debt to take action to better
protect themselves and build their resilience because of the risk to
their credit rating, as evaluated by the same ratings agencies that
demand to know what they are doing to reduce the risk and vulnerability
to their resilience, in order to retain their good credit. This is a
problem today, and without adequate coastal analysis and protection, it
will grow worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ A Bernstein, M Gustafson, and R Lewis, ``Disaster on the
Horizon: The Price Effect of Sea Level Rise,'' Journal of Financial
Economics, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are health risks too. Combined sewer systems exist in about
860 US Cities, with three of them in Virginia (Alexandria, Richmond and
Lynchburg).\25\ Combined Sewer Overflow events (CSO), pose a
significant threat to public health and the environment--a threat that
will only increase because of climate change. An EPA study found that
climate change could lead to a 12 to 50 percent increase in storm
events that lead to combined sewer overflow events \26\, with 70 such
events releasing a combined one billion gallons of sewage occurring
nationwide between January 2015 and September 2016.\27\ Additionally,
sea level rise is a threat to coastal localities with outflow pipes
that may be inundated in the future, (and some are already) preventing
discharge without costly pumping systems, and introducing seawater that
could damage the mechanical and biological integrity of wastewater
treatment facilities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ A Kenward et al., ``Overflow: Climate Change, Heavy Rain, and
Sewage,'' States at Risk (Climate Central, September 2016), file:///C:/
Users/dea29868/Downloads/Overflow_sewagereport_update.pdf.
\26\ ``A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate
Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in The Great Lakes
and New England Regions (Final Report).'' (Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2008).
\27\ Kenward et al., ``Overflow: Climate Change, Heavy Rain, and
Sewage.''
\28\ Ben Bovarnick, Shiva Polefka, and Arpita Bhattacharyya,
``Rising Waters, Rising Threat: How Climate Change Endangers America's
Neglected Wastewater Infrastructure'' (Center for American Progress,
October 2014), https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/
10/wastewater-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, increased flooding is also a threat to septic systems in
rural areas, a tremendous and growing problem in much of rural Coastal
Virginia, and in fact, in many Coastal states. Inundated leach fields
cause Septic systems to fail, releasing contaminated water into the
ground or surface water. Failing septic systems, as well as the absence
of either septic or sewer systems, cause significant public health and
water quality risks for rural communities throughout Virginia.\29\ The
risk of septic system failure is increasing as sea level rises and
flooding occurs more frequently, creating a unique challenge for the
many rural homeowners and localities who lack the resources and
capacity to rehabilitate or replace their systems, or install expensive
sewage treatment facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Jamie Huffman, Sarah Simonettic, and Scott Herbest, ``Onsite
Sewage Systems: Background, Framework, and Solutions'' (Virginia
Coastal policy center, Fall 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Is Taking Action
Under Governor Ralph Northam, Virginia is taking bold and
substantive action to identify risk and develop a strategic vision and
actionable steps to prepare our coast. He intends to build capacity for
Virginia as we set standards and define how we as a coastal state will
approach this existential threat, and has taken a series of executive
actions, through Executive Order 24, Increasing Virginia's Resilience
to Sea Level Rise and Natural Hazards, signed November 2nd, 2018. With
this Order, Virginia is directed to determine the vulnerability of and
set standards for future built infrastructure throughout the
Commonwealth, to make Commonwealth holdings more resilient. We have
established and implemented a series of sea level rise scenario
planning curves, to ensure the resilience of state-owned infrastructure
and as recommendations for local governments and regions to use in
planning and preparations for the future. We have also established a
series of recommendations for first finished floor elevation for future
constructed state-owned buildings that may be located in floodplains.
And we have incorporated substantive changes to our National Flood
Plain Program oversight and implementation structure, all as directed
by Executive Order 45, signed November 14th, 2019 by Governor Northam.
Executive Order 24 also directs development of a Virginia Coastal
Protection Master Plan to adapt and protect our coastal region. This
plan will build on and align those actions which our localities and
regions have already taken to prepare themselves for their future, and
will lay out a series of recommended actions and strategies for our
state to develop and prioritize how it will adapt and protect our
valuable and vulnerable coastline. In this context we view it as
essential to work with our federal partners, in particular the Corps,
as we move forward to better prepare our state, regions, localities,
and communities, to build trust, and demonstrate value. Finally,
Executive Order 24 will serve to coordinate, collaborate, and
communicate across state entities, across and with federal entities,
and across our Coastal regions, communities, and localities to ensure
coordinated objectives, and the best use of scarce funding dollars.
Virginia has identified four key areas of focus. First, the use of
natural and nature-based solutions where feasible, as the first line of
defense and to protect vulnerable built assets while also protecting
sensitive coastal environments. Second, we are focused on collaborative
efforts at every level, working with and across localities to expand
the capacity of their dollars, of state dollars, and where possible, of
federal dollars. Third, we are committed to ensure environmental
justice, as underserved communities often bear the most substantial
brunt of flooding challenges, and yet have the least capacity to plan,
apply for grant dollars, determine or meet federal and state match
requirements, and to sort out solutions to fund and implement actions
to keep their communities and their histories viable into the future.
Executive Order 29, establishes the Virginia Council on Environmental
Justice, specifically to help address these issues and challenges.\30\
Finally, we will facilitate the adoption of resilience practices across
federal, state, and local agencies and processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Commonwealth of Virginia Executive Order 29'' (Office of the
Governor, January 22, 2019), https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/
governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-29-
Establishment-Of-The-Virginia-Council-On-Environmental-Justice.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How This Committee Can Help/Recommendations for Congress:
The Commonwealth of Virginia works closely with the US Army Corps
of Engineers across a number of programs, including the Feasibility
Study 3x3x3 process and Continuing Authorities programs.\31\ Both
processes allow Army Corps Districts to work with local governments to
study the needs of communities dealing with rising waters and storm
surge. Related to recommendations from the 2015 North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Survey--completed by USACE North Atlantic Division--the
City of Norfolk and USACE Norfolk District completed a Feasibility
study in February of 2019 and have proceeded to the preliminary
engineering design phase.\32\ The second recommended study area,
Potomac River shoreline in Northern Virginia, has just started a
Coastal Storm Risk Management Study (July 15 , 2019) under the auspices
of the Baltimore District, USACE, with the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments as the non-federal sponsor, and the Commonwealth
of Virginia as one of several cost share partners.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``The Corps Feasibility Study--Finding a Balanced Solution,''
Headquarters, accessed September 16, 2019, https://www.usace.army.mil/
Media/News-Archive/Story-Article-View/
Article/643197/the-corps-feasibility-study-finding-a-balanced-
solution/.
\32\ ``North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study: Resilient
Adaptation to Increasing Risk,'' Study (United States Army Corps of
Engineers, 2015), https://www.nad.usace.army.mil/CompStudy/.
\33\ ``Northern Virginia Coastal Study,'' accessed September 16,
2019, https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/DC_Coastal_Study/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support and Appropriate Funds for a Full Coastal Study in Virginia:
In 2018, the Water Resources Development Act authorized a Full
Coastal Study for Virginia, to include flood risk management, ecosystem
restoration and navigation. This gives the Commonwealth the flexibility
to include more than one city or municipality in the study area,
critical to a region such as Hampton Roads, where multiple cities,
localities, and federal facilities exist in close proximity.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Water Resources Development Act of 2018,'' Pub. L. No. H.R.
8, Sec. 201 (9) (2018), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/
house-bill/8/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this full coastal authorization, Virginia and the Corps should
be able to conduct a detailed analysis of the risks and impact to
Coastal Virginia, including our eight Coastal Planning Districts and
Regional Commissions, from the ocean to the full extent of tidal
influence--as well as our critical national security and port
infrastructure, our valuable tourism, aquaculture industries, and our
beautiful natural resources and natural coastlines. However, in working
at the District Level, we have been told the Corps has no interest in
conducting a full coastal study for Virginia, as we will never meet the
benefit/cost analysis requirements, and that this authorization will
simply serve to allow more than one locality to participate in USACE-
led studies. When considering the economic impact of our Coastal
Region, as described earlier in this testimony, we find it hard to
understand this logic. As we work to develop our own Coastal Master
Plan to protect and adapt Coastal Virginia, the top priority is to
conduct a full coastal analysis, to gain a detailed and multi-layered
understanding of that infrastructure that is critical and vulnerable,
so that we can identify and prioritize impact, solutions, and costs.
This will be true for every Coastal State, and the longer we wait, the
less prepared we, as a nation, will be for this threat.
Include DOD properties and Federal infrastructure in studies--this is
essential for Virginia
The challenge for any USACE civil works study is that such studies
do not include Federal property, as dictated by restrictions to funding
appropriations sources, and so require additional coordination between
USACE, DOD, State and local participants to align appropriated funding.
As an example, the Norfolk CSRM study only includes the City of
Norfolk, and did not include a similar level of effort or the impacts
to or outcomes of storm surge and recurrent flooding for Naval Station
Norfolk or Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads. Both facilities have
extensive territory within their fence line in the Coastal, 100 year
and 500 year flood plains, with watersheds that extend into the City of
Norfolk--by excluding them, the study is incomplete. Further, by only
doing one city and not considering regional watershed impacts broadly,
the study is further incomplete. This in no way lessens the need for
outcomes defined within the Norfolk Flood Control Feasibility Study, in
fact, it drives home the need for a broader and more thorough full
Coastal Study of Virginia by the Corps, one that engages both the civil
works and military construction sides of USACE.
Beach Renourishment May Not be a Long Term Solution.
NASA's Wallops Island Flight Test Facility is also entirely in the
Coastal Flood Plain and with billions of dollars in critical national
infrastructure at risk. The current plan for protecting Wallops Island
is ineffective as a long-term strategy, relying on beach renourishment
every five years at a cost exceeding $50 million, and with limited
consideration for sea level rise impacts.\35\ \36\ USACE is the
contracting authority in support of the current NASA Wallops Beach
renourishment project, which has State permitted approval, and this
pending renourishment should be effective short term. However, current
sea level rise projections show an additional 3 to 4.5 feet of sea
level rise over the next 60 years for the area, which further
reinforces the need for studying long term impacts, as a part of a full
Coastal Study, to better understand potential damaging side effects
from renourishment, and to determine options and strategies to adapt
and protect this critical and important facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``NASA Wallops Island Shoreline Stabilization Project,''
accessed November 12, 2019, https://www.nao.usace.army.mil/About/
Projects/NASAWallopsShoreline.aspx.
\36\ ``PEIS WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM,'' Environmental Impact Statement
(Wallops Island, VA: NASA, October 2010), https://code200-
external.gsfc.nasa.gov/sites/code250-wffe/files/
documents/SRIPP_Final_PEIS_Volume_I.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This demonstrates the problem with benefit-cost analysis in the
short term, versus understanding the longer-term climate impact--and
costing more in the end to taxpayers. Again, the longer we delay in
determining and considering broader outcomes, the fewer options remain,
and the more costly they become. We recommend that the Committee
consider changes to the USACE benefit-cost formula to ensure that non-
structural and long-term climate adaptation solutions pass muster.
In addition, in a recent letter, Department of the Interior
Secretary David Bernhardt wrote to Congressman Van Drew (NJ) announcing
the Trump administration would change a 25-year-old policy to make it
easier for coastal communities to take sand from protected ecosystems
to improve or renourish beaches. Destroying protected ecosystems in
favor of short-term flood abatement is not in the long-term interest of
Virginia or the United States. We recommend the committee reverse this
rule change in the next Water Resources Development Act.
Federal Agency Funding Alignment
While USACE can work for DoD and other Federal agencies, they must
be funded with DOD or other agencies' appropriations for such work,
which does not often happen because of a lack of coordination. In a
region like Hampton Roads, or on the Eastern Shore at NASA's Wallops
Island Flight Test Facility--both with billions of dollars if critical
national infrastructure at risk, the failure to include Federal
facilities in Coastal Storm and Environmental planning by the Corps is
a grave oversight.
Finally, language in the draft 2020 NDAA directs DOD to fund US
Army Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) to undertake a
national study of water related risks and vulnerabilities to military
installation resilience, along with an assessment of ongoing or planned
projects by the Corps of Engineers that may adapt such risks. This will
help mitigate this challenge, but meanwhile, the gap in federal
resilience planning alignment with the USACE Feasibility Study and
larger study process continues, placing communities and military
facilities at risk.
Prioritize and Organize USACE Missions, Flood Control Projects and
Studies
Within the three primary missions of the USACE Civil Works
Division, Navigation, Environmental Restoration and Flood Control,
often work against each other, as navigation projects are a nearer term
priority, often overshadowing costlier and longer-term flood control
requirements. This results in navigation projects receiving funding at
the expense of flood control, which further delays critical flood and
water infrastructure projects. This Committee should consider the
creation of some type of ``firewall'' or funding limit that considers
navigation projects separately, and only evaluates them against other
navigation projects so that flood control projects can be prioritized
with dedicated funding. The USACE also needs to find a comprehensive
way to evaluate whether navigation projects may be adversely impacting
flooding or environmental restoration. The National Environmental
Policy Act and Clean Water Act provide some protections, and those must
be maintained or strengthened.
Evaluate and Reduce USACE Flood Control Project Backlog
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a $96 billion backlog
of authorized but unconstructed projects, while annual appropriations
for the USACE Construction account under Energy and Water Development
appropriations bills have averaged $2 billion in recent years. Congress
has also limited the number of new studies and construction projects
initiated with annual discretionary appropriations, with a limit of
five new construction starts using FY2019 appropriations.\37\ Since
only a few construction projects are typically started each fiscal
year, numerous projects that have been authorized by previous
Congresses remain unfunded and backlogged. This problem has worsened in
recent decades as Congress has authorized construction of new projects
at a rate that exceeds USACE's annual construction appropriations. This
drives competition for funds among authorized activities during the
budget development and appropriations process, and only a few projects
make it into the President's budget each year. Non-federal entities
involved in USACE projects are frustrated with the extreme effort it
takes to fund the projects their localities need, and again, those
processes do not include federal bases that are within or adjacent to
community boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``Army Corps of Engineers Annual and Supplemental
Appropriations: Issues for Congress'' (Congressional Research Service,
October 2018), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps must evaluate the complete list of back-logged projects
for currency recommend to Congress which projects are not addressing
current or future flooding needs, or are otherwise unnecessary, or do
not address resilience, pre-disaster mitigation, or infrastructure and
flood plain actions. Further, the Corps must assist states in the
prioritization and aggregation of flood control projects so to
streamline the most effective projects and reduce projects and studies
that overlap or leave gaps in coverage along jurisdictional lines.
Congress must instruct The Corps to prioritize projects that provide
the greatest flood risk reduction and assist regions with the greatest
economic needs, as well as prioritizing projects that are part of
regional comprehensive plans.
Develop and Promulgate Guidance for States and Localities/Include and
Validate Commercial and Academic Analysis
The Corps should develop guidance on addressing Sea Level Rise and
pre-disaster mitigation. As an example, the Naval Facilities and
Engineering Command released an excellent Climate Change Planning
Handbook: Installation Adaptation and Resilience planning guide in
January 2017, but with little follow-up on how and when facilities
should use it. This document could be a key tool in federal facility
resilience planning, and the Corps could either adopt it, or
incorporate it in their guidance to States and localities.\38\ As the
Corps begins new Feasibility Studies, Congress should ensure the Corps
will accept and validate commercial and academic study work as the
basis for, or in place of, a feasibility study (for example, Virginia
Beach's own Back Bay study and storm water study discussed earlier). We
simply cannot delay any longer, the costs and risk are too great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ``Climate Change Planning Handbook Installation Adaptation and
Resilience,'' Final Report (Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Headquarters, January 2017), https://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/
index.cfm?id=31041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emphasize Green Infrastructure, and Develop Expanded Benefit/Cost
Analysis that Quantifies Green Infrastructure and Natural and Nature-
based Feature (NNBF) Benefits, and the needs of Underserved Communities
The Corps must move from a grey infrastructure/hardscape focus to
one that emphasizes green infrastructure and natural and nature-based
features wherever feasible. While ERDC has plenty of capacity to
address such infrastructure through its Engineering with Green
Infrastructure Initiative, its work is rarely considered in the Coastal
Storm Risk Management process.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``EWN, Dr. Todd Bridges, Bio,'' 3, accessed November 12, 2019,
https://ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/bios/bio_bridges_todd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green infrastructure and NNBF's buy time, and in many
circumstances, are more effective, and more cost-effective through
reducing the amount of water overall, and by absorbing, capturing and
slowing down run-off and floodwaters while providing ecosystem services
and co-benefits. This is particularly valuable in the context of
providing services to underserved communities, and ensuring
environmental equity across communities. In summary, we need a
fundamental reconsideration of BCA, including strong environmental
review, quantification of green and NNBF infrastructure benefits, and
consideration of environmental equity, given what we now know about
costs and the longer term nature of climate change as a threat.
Conclusion
Virginia values its relationship with the US Army Corps of
Engineers and their ongoing work with State agencies and localities.
Virginia wants and needs a Full Coastal Study, and looks forward to
working with USACE to plan, fund and implement our authorization.
There is an urgent need to align Corps planning standards,
Feasibility Study, and benefit-cost analysis processes to better serve
coastal States and their communities dealing with rising waters and
recurrent flooding.
Federal facilities must be included in the Feasibility Study
process, and guidance from the Corps on quantifying green
infrastructure and natural and nature-based features, along with
reducing and prioritizing the flood control project backlog, will
expedite opportunities to reduce flood risk in communities across the
nation. Rising waters and recurrent flooding know no political
boundaries; they know no boundaries of wealth or race; they know no
boundaries of society. Coastal communities and their Federal partners
across Virginia and around the country are being impacted today.
This Committee can help by recognizing the need to align Corps
responsibilities with sea level rise, recurrent flooding and coastal
resilience as one of the country's greatest and most immediate needs.
Virginia is committed to building capacity for our coastal
communities to prepare for and build resilience to this threat, and as
one of many impacted coastal and riverine states, we need the support
of a coordinated federal response to make this happen.
We have no time to waste because ``Time and Tide wait for no man.''
(The words of Geoffrey Chaucer)
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer this testimony, and I
look forward to your questions.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Phillips.
Mr. Pineda, you are recognized.
Mr. Pineda. Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman
and Chairman DeFazio and members of the full committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today in my role as chair of
the Association of State Floodplain Managers. You have my bio,
but I will point out that I have been working as a civil
engineer focusing on water resources for over 39 years and in
flood plain management since 2000. My comments will focus on
the following four areas: strategic direction, levee and dam
risk management, Public Law 84-99, and water resources
principles and guidelines.
Under strategic direction, ASFPM recommends developing a
significantly more robust, non-project-related technical
assistance role for the Corps at the district level, either
through the Floodplain Management Services program or Planning
Assistance to States or a new authority. The FPMS and PAS
programs could serve to substantially expand the Corps'
contribution to enhancing water resources resiliency and
sustainability and should be authorized and funded to at least
$50 million annually. The Corps Silver Jackets program is
successful, but additional technical assistance not tied to a
specific project is needed at the local level. This is
especially true for disadvantaged and impoverished communities.
Through the Corps' Tribal nations program, additional
technical assistance and expertise should be provided to our
Tribal nations to assist in finding ways to help them improve
their water resources infrastructure.
Congress should set policy on decisionmaking that will
result in natural infrastructure being a preferred alternative
due to its multipurpose multibenefits. The Corps should
continue to fully support the implementation of the Engineering
With Nature initiative throughout the agency. The Corps
supports the ASFPM-administered National Flood Barrier Testing
Program. The Corps' nationally recognized Engineer Research and
Development Center needs to be modernized to meet the testing
needs for a growing number of private sector developed flood
barriers. The Corps is reimbursed for the cost of testing these
products.
Through the Corps feasibility study planning process, the
use of nonstructural flood risk reduction measures needs
enhanced consideration. The Corps National Nonstructural
Floodproofing Committee has done excellent work for many years
and needs continued headquarters support to incorporate
nonstructural measures into selected plans.
Due to the major flood events of 2011 and three major flood
events on the lower Missouri River system in 2019, the Corps
needs authority and funding to study the Missouri River flood
management system as an integrated system, including reservoir
operations, levees and land use. Under levee and dam risk
management, Congress and the Corps should adopt policies for
new levees or the reconstruction of levees that encourage
levees be set back from the water's edge to preserve riparian
areas, reduce erosion and scour, reduce flood levels and
flooding risk, recharge groundwater and allow natural flood
plain ecosystems to better serve their natural functions.
ASFPM recommends full implementation of the National Levee
Safety Program. ASFPM recommends the Corps activate the new
National Levee Safety Committee composed of Federal agencies,
State and local stakeholders, professional associations, and
experts, as directed in WRRDA 2014 to develop consistent
guidance for levee siting, design, construction and operations
and maintenance standards.
Under Public Law 84-99, conform the Public Law 84-99
program 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. For every project, explicitly require
consideration of realigning or setting back levee segments and
integrating setback levees to the fullest extent possible.
Under revisions of water resources principles and
guidelines, ASFPM recommends that in developing implementation
guidance for principles, requirements, and guidelines, agencies
must require full accounting of ongoing long-term operations,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement costs be
included in benefit-cost analyses for all structural and
nonstructural projects. ASFPM recommends that the Corps and
other agencies develop and transform Federal planning
principles to a national economic resilience and sustainability
standard.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be
happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[Mr. Pineda's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ricardo S. Pineda, P.E., C.F.M., Chair,
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Supervising Water Resources
Engineer, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood
Management, on behalf of the Association of State Floodplain Managers
Introduction
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) appreciates
the opportunity to share our views and ideas for potential improvements
in programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that would help
increase the resiliency and long-term health and productivity of our
nation's water resources infrastructure as the Committee prepares to
develop a 2020 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
The 19,000 members of ASFPM and our Chapters are partners of the
Corps, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and many other
federal agencies along with those 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 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.
Recent experience continues to demonstrate that the increasing
variability and frequency of intense weather events and conditions,
along with intensifying watershed development and aging water
infrastructure underscore the need for new thinking and approaches to
reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience. 2019 is the fifth
consecutive year (2015-2019) in which 10 or more billion-dollar weather
and climate disaster events have impacted the United States, according
to the National Climatic Data Center of NOAA. The NCDC identifies some
254 such events having occurred since 1980 with a cost of more than
$1.7 trillion. Floods are--and continue to be--the nation's most
frequent and costliest disasters 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 and local sponsors 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 and costs.
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 address 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.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from FY 2005-FY
2018 Congress spent nearly twice as much ($44 billion) on recovery from
flooding and other natural disasters as from regular annual
appropriations for flood-related activities ($23 b). 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 guidance and
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, which is underway or forming in
virtually all the states, 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 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 to the local and state level. However, it is still nearly
impossible to leverage Corps expertise on more than an ad-hoc basis,
and not associated with a particular Corps project. While Silver
Jackets has somewhat helped this at the state level, 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 38 districts which contribute to the
Civil works mission, 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 to help locals and states
accomplish their role of flood loss reduction.
The Floodplain Management Services (FPMS) 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.
ASFPM believes that programs such as FPMS, PAS, and Silver
Jackets--that are designed to provide engineering and scientific
assistance to communities and states on a collaborative basis--are a
critical key to fostering and developing local and state resilience
planning capacity that should be a key goal for Corps transformation in
the area of flood damage reduction and floodplain management into the
21st Century. 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 so they can implement the various options they have
for reducing the hazard. These approaches and options can be
structural, nonstructural, or a combination of the two and can often
lead to less expensive and more resilient and 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 work on them vigorously and others do not. We know through 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 exceed available resources, but the funding does
not always get to the districts who have activities that will expend
the funds and help communities and states. 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 (meaning they cannot proceed unless they have a project to
charge their time) versus making the technical assistance more broadly
and widely available. A special focus in the next WRDA should be to
make such technical assistance more readily available to help
disadvantaged and impoverished communities plan for reducing flood
risk, increasing flood resiliency, and improving flood risk management.
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 had 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 could serve to substantially expand the Corps' contribution to
enhancing water resources resilience and sustainability, and should be
authorized and funded at least at $50 million annually.

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. This is also where the
locals and states could proceed using funds outside of federal taxpayer
funds. A number of states have their own mitigation grant programs, and
working collaboratively with USACE expertise to fit actions within a
comprehensive watershed and resilient manner could greatly benefit
flood loss reduction in the nation.
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) 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 Corps 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-benefits, working with natural processes approach.
he 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). 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 to specify use of appropriate
products that would avoid the failures we saw in the Midwest in 2019.
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. This is especially of concern, given the increasing
intensities and impacts of storms and flooding events being experienced
in many communities and regions across the nation. Nonstructural and
nature-based flood risk management approaches are often capable of
buffering and withstanding these impacts with far lower overall cost,
while providing major economic, societal, and environmental benefits.
While the Corps 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 often been well-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 and state 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 programs
whether it be through PL 84-99 or as a result of the Principles and
Guidelines or current cost-sharing policies. Yet, the array of
adaptation techniques that coastal and inland communities will need to
respond to increasing risks and changing conditions 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 and could be done in combination with a structural measure.
ASFPM encourages the Corps to identify and remove systemic biases
against nonstructural, flood-risk reduction measures and elevate the
status of such measures strategically.
Authority to study Missouri River flood management system.
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 at 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 (room for rivers) or removed and to see if other
mitigation options like buyouts or elevation of buildings, which would
be more effective and less costly, could be employed. Such a study is
needed to help guide major repair and rehabilitation, in particular, in
response to changing water conditions in the Missouri Basin and to
evaluate improved floodplain management, storage, and flood conveyance
solutions for large floods and runoff events. We believe the Corps and
basin management would benefit from broad based evaluations in many
instances where increasing flooding is occurring or can be calculated.
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 and resilience. 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 states 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 (barrier
testing) 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 the seeming lack of 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, and 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 led by General Gerald Galloway after the
1993 Mississippi River floods. One recommendation never enacted was a
new law to define the flood risk management responsibilities of
federal, state and local governments, including the levee districts
that build and maintain locally-funded levees. This could best be done
by directing the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
(FIFM-TF) to do it.
Despite enormous public investment in flood ``control'' structures,
this spending has been outpaced by development in risky areas and
development in the watersheds that increases runoff and flooding,
resulting in 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 a further distance 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 of flood storage and
conveyance as well as providing valuable habitat.

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 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 (such as
hospitals, schools, fire stations, police stations, storage of critical
records, etc.) 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 communitywide 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) and National Inventory of Dams (NID). 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 to the 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 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-Hurricane 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 better guide
development and 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
publicly available. Why would we be withholding this vital information
on flood risk? The ASFPM would urge clarification in the next WRDA that
identification of potential inundation areas from levee or dam
operation or failures should be made widely available to help inform
the public in making a wide range of economic and life-safety decisions
and plans.
The above policy seems to be an artifact from 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 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
Congressional requirements that such areas be shown on Flood Insurance
Rate Maps and on publicly-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 federal 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 publicly available.

Let's not have a recurrence of the Oroville dam situation from a
couple years ago where a 190,000 people were told to evacuate very
quickly because the dam's integrity was threatened, and none of them
had been told or 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, yet this may be among the most
important issues to help many communities consider and develop
effective flood risk management and infrastructure resiliency.
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 federal 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 with 20 recommendations made in 2009. The 2014 WRRDA 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 programs 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, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has
reported a similar level. While it does not fund the program at its
full authorization of $79 million, it does provide $15 million.

ASFPM recommends full implementation of the National
Levee Safety Program and require 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 a new 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 maintenance 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 are safe and do not have a false sense of
security that the levee will protect them. The authorized Corps Levee
Safety programs need 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 even 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. Gen. Spellman indicated that changes to any one
levee on the system could cause more problems downstream, or across the
river.
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 PL 84-99
PL 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, PL 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 PL 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. PL 84-99, which is the principal 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 PL 84-99, has been on-again-off-again process
of being under consideration for updating for several years. ASFPM
believes that it is essential this guidance be updated and 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. PL 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 PL 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 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.
Data and Information on PL 84-99 costs and repetitive levee and flood
control repair/rehabilitation costs.
In addition, ASFPM is concerned that we have seen no work products
nor results, despite Congress' direction in Section 3029 of WRDA 2014
that the Corps of Engineers should provide reports to Congress and the
public on the implementation of PL 84-99 (33 U.S.C 701(n)), including
an evaluation of alternatives available to the Secretary to ensure the
USACE is effective meeting of program goals, and including regular
biennial reports under WRDA 2014 Sec. 3029(c) on the specific
expenditures and costs, work required, and actions of the Secretary,
under PL 84-99.
It appears there are levees which repeatedly fail or are overtopped
and are simply get repaired to the same situation time and again,
largely with federal taxpayer funding.
Without accurate data and information regarding past emergency
actions and the repair and rehabilitation of levees and other flood
control works, Congress and the public cannot evaluate the
effectiveness of PL 84-99, or the program's contribution to water
resource resiliency.
In addition, the Corps initiated a public inquiry Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking regarding PL 84-99 in February of 2015 (COE-2015-
0004), but the Corps has never since responded to public comments nor
completed the Rulemaking exercise. We strongly urge Congress to
immediately insist on the Corps' completion of the required reports and
insist the Corps to assemble and make publicly available Corps' data
and information on expenditures by project and watershed, and identify
any instances of repetitive repair and rehabilitation costs and
locations under PL 84-99.
PL 84-99's treatment of nonstructural options is limited. ER-500-1-
1 indicates: Under PL 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 PL 84-99.

Levee setbacks, in many instances, can be a critical resiliency and
sustainability adjustment to improve public safety and environmental
management and to 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 PL 84-99 rehabilitation option, but, again, has left this up
to local sponsors whether even to consider such an approach. 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. Generally, we would urge establishment of a clear
authority for the Secretary or the Chief of Engineers to study the
feasibility of making adjustments, and where appropriate, considering
nonstructural, use of natural infrastructure, and/or nature-based
features as alternatives or additional actions to address levee and
flood project rehabilitation. 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 PL 84-99
repairs. This important modification to PL 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.
Amendments Regarding Cost-sharing for Feasibility studies and
construction of Natural Infrastructure and Nature-based flood
damage reduction projects.
As we have said previously, ASFPM continues to be concerned that
despite Congress' efforts in successive WRDA's and Corps program
oversight to encourage greater use of non-structural and nature-based
approaches in flood damage reduction, we see far too little on-the-
ground progress, due to numerous areas of policy bias towards
traditional structural approaches. We believe that, given ongoing
hydrologic, climate, and development changes in watersheds, a concerted
effort is needed to reduce historical biases and to better incentivize
the use of these effective risk reduction tools.
In addition to authorizing and directing the Chief of Engineers to
regularly apply the Corps' science and engineering data and expertise
to consider non-structural and natural infrastructure alternatives in
appropriate PL 84-99 repairs and rehabilitations, ASFPM would also
recommend the following two amendments regarding cost-sharing rules to
better incentivize and support potential for natural infrastructure and
nature-based features to be considered as alternatives in Corps
development or modification of flood damage reduction projects.

Modify cost sharing and guidance to level playing field
for natural infrastructure and nature-based features with construction
of nonstructural projects compared to structural projects.

This first amendment would extend the current cap on non-Federal
construction costs for nonstructural projects to natural infrastructure
alternatives and natural and nature-based features. Present law caps
``nonstructural'' flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration
projects non-Federal cost shares at 35 percent. However, ``natural
features'' ``nature-based features'' and ``natural infrastructure
alternatives'' are subject to 50 percent non-federal cost share caps,
if the costs of ``LERRDS'' (lands, interests, rights of way,
relocations, and disposal areas) raise a project's costs to above 35
percent, which often may be the case, even though such projects may be
less expensive than traditional projects. The amendment brings nature-
based, natural features, and natural infrastructure alternatives, which
are terms added in recent WRDA's to receive the same 35 percent
construction cost-share cap that is now afforded for nonstructural and
ecosystem restoration measures, and would provide an entirely
appropriate incentive for these generally similar and compatible
approaches.
This could be done in 33 USC 2213(b) by adding ``and measures
employing natural features, nature-based features and natural
infrastructure alternatives, as defined in Section 1184 of WRDA 2016
(33 USC 2289a) and Section 1149 of WRDA 2018 (P.L. 115-270)'' after
``nonstructural flood control measures'' where it appears in 33 USC
2213(b), and by adding ``and storm and hurricane damage reduction''
after ``flood control'' where it appears in 33 USC 2213(b).

Fully fund federal feasibility study cost for
nonstructural, natural infrastructure and nature-based features
approaches studies to flood damage reduction.

ASFPM has long supported a requirement that all USACE projects must
consider the full range of nonstructural and structural alternatives
before the project is implemented. Unfortunately, the current law
requires the local sponsor to consent to looking at alternatives. This
language should be changed.
The second amendment proposal is intended to provide an alternative
to this suggestion, where it would provide the Chief of Engineers
discretionary authority to study feasibility of all alternatives at
full federal cost for nonstructural, natural infrastructure, and
nature-based approaches to flood damage reduction. It would give the
Chief of Engineers [or the Secretary] discretion to do feasibility and
detailed report studies for flood damage reduction and hurricane and
storm damage reduction projects that consider nonstructural, natural
infrastructure and nature-based features at full Federal study cost.
This would happen where the Chief determines that current or reasonably
expected future conditions may warrant such expenditures to provide for
appropriate flood or storm damage reduction on a cost-effective or
substantial life-cycle federal cost savings basis and/or where
nonstructural or natural infrastructure or nature-based features would
be considered to provide at least 50 percent of total flood damage
reduction benefits in one or more of the final array of considered
alternatives. In this instance, due to the full Federal cost, a
particular advance consent of a non-Federal sponsor would not be
required. This would give the Corps of Engineers the ability to
consider such natural infrastructure alternatives where warranted,
which often is not done due to refusal of a non-Federal sponsor to
request and/or consent to (and pay 50 percent of study costs) the
consideration of such measures.
We believe such authority would be responsive to the requests of
Corps leaders in the Committee's May Corps oversight hearing for
authority to consider broader sets of water resource and hydrologic
concerns than they currently can.
Applicability: Where the Chief of Engineers believes potential may
exist for nonstructural, natural infrastructure and/or nature-based
approaches could result in cost-effective or substantial life-cycle
taxpayer savings.
Feasibility Study Cost Share: Communities could receive full
federal funding for feasibility studies for flood and storm damage
reduction projects that may have potential to utilize nonstructural,
natural infrastructure and/or nature-based approaches with potential
savings at discretion of the Chief of Engineers.
Study Requirements: One or more of the final array of proposed
alternatives evaluated in a covered feasibility study must incorporate
nonstructural or natural infrastructure features as a significant
component of the project. Feasibility studies carried out under this
subsection must incorporate natural infrastructure features that reduce
flood or storm damages or flood or storm risks by at least [50 percent]
in one or more of the final array of proposed alternatives evaluated.
The feasibility study cost share is seen as a major hurdle for
meaningfully assessing natural infrastructure regardless of the
relative wealth of a community. Current law and guidance require the
Corps to request and receive a non-federal sponsors consent to study
nonstructural alternatives, which would not be required when studies
are fully paid for at federal expense.
Some lower income communities have been unable to pay the cost
shares of such studies and therefore do not receive Corps assistance to
look at a full range of options for flood damage reduction. Congress
has established an ability to pay provision (33 USC 2213(m)); however,
the Corps has not meaningfully implemented that provision and (as best
as we can tell) continues to rely on extremely restrictive guidance
from 1989, despite having been directed to update that guidance in WRDA
2007.

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 require
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 PL 84-99. Other
ASPFM recommendations include:

Including a provision for expedient buyouts of structures
and land under PL 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 PL 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 PL 84-99 assistance (similar
to NFIP and Stafford Act repetitive loss mitigation).

Consideration should be given to reducing federal subsidies in PL
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. This should be a fundamental principle of
planning for community and water infrastructure resiliency. 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 in 2019, and with major Gulf
Coast and Eastern Seaboard flooding, from 2017, 2018 and 2019
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 need 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, and we applaud the Committee for considering our nation's water
resources infrastructure, especially in light of long-term resiliency
concerns. If you have any questions, please contact me, Ricardo Pineda,
PE, CFM, Chair, ASFPM or ASFPM Executive Director Chad Berginnis.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Pineda.
I will next go to Mr. Gritzo. You are recognized.
Mr. Gritzo. Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Westerman and honorable members of the
subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today.
My name is Dr. Louis Gritzo. I am a mechanical engineer who
serves as vice president of research for FM Global, one of the
world's largest commercial industrial property insurance
companies, headquartered in Rhode Island. One of every three
Fortune 1000 companies looks to FM Global to engineer down
their risk against all hazards, including fire, natural hazards
and even cyberattacks.
With approximately 10,000 company locations that are FM
Global clients located in flood zones, our clients, who are
also our owners as a mutual company, realize the critical
importance of protecting flood risk for their well-being and
our Nation's. FM Global has been working to do this since 1835.
The founder of the company was a Rhode Island millowner, who
realized he could do smart engineering things to reduce against
the catastrophe of his times, devastating mill fires. He did
these measures, still needed insurance, and banded together
with other millowners to form a mutual company. These
principles are still the operations of which FM Global acts
today.
With over 1,300 engineers located worldwide, performing
100,000 risk assessments of client locations each year, we know
that efforts to reduce risk and improve resilience are most
successful when they are complemented by local, State and
Federal initiatives. As the world's most frequent flood hazard,
nowhere is this approach more important and no time is it more
important than now. The science is clear; we know flood risk is
increasing due to a warming climate and due to an increasingly
hardened landscape and additional development.
Examples of public-private partnerships that can be
successful are the development of ANSI Standard 2510 for
temporary flood barriers. These temporary flood barriers are
tested at the Army Corps of Engineers Research Center. These
are also part of the National Flood Barrier Program with the
Association of State Floodplain Managers.
These measures work. In Hurricane Harvey, locations that
used them reduced their loss by 80 percent. However, not all
loss is preventable. We know that insurance is still needed.
We work with our clients to implement the fraction of
insurance available from the National Flood Insurance Program
and then underwrite based on scientific and engineering risk
assessments, not actuarial methods, to cover the remaining
risk. This is increasingly important, as we know the future is
not going to be like the past.
Unfortunately, even the most comprehensive insurance
program is not enough. When companies experience flood losses,
they lose market share, they lose shareholder value, supply
chain integrity. It damages their reputation, it damages
investor confidence in growth and, most importantly, businesses
suffer regional damage, including families that depend on those
businesses for paychecks for their livelihood. In aggregate,
long-term losses to U.S. business erode our country's economic
competitiveness.
For many commercial properties, the first line of defense
is levees. We support work with clients' local authorities to
assess levees and other flood management options, including
environmental ones. Well-designed and maintained levees are
obviously very effective at preventing losses. However,
maintenance is severely lacking.
There are two other unmet needs. When looking at the
ability to temporarily install barriers to protect a client
facility, as of now, any solutions that protect for waters over
3 feet are considered experimental. Of the 10,000 U.S. business
locations that have been identified by FM Global engineers as
having flood exposure, one in four of them experiences flood
water greater than 3 feet and there is currently no way to test
these at the U.S. Army ERDC. We therefore support an
improvement in the ERDC laboratory to enable testing of
solutions to address higher flood waters. We also support
general improvements in the use of cost-effective sensors,
technologies, networks and communication to improve early flood
warning, better respond to floods in progress, and improve
long-term planning by collecting and assembling data for use by
authorities and the private sector for their own benefit.
In summary, the risk to American businesses from flood is
real. It's vital that we improve our flood resilience.
Insurance is not enough. Sound science and tested engineering
solutions, as well as strong and sustained public-private and
academic partnerships, we believe, are the answer.
Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
[Mr. Gritzo's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Louis A. Gritzo, Ph.D., Vice President of
Research, FM Global
Dear Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Honorable
Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to join you today as you
consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, and as you weigh
priorities for mitigating flood-related threats to American communities
and businesses. I hope you find this testimony helpful as you make far-
reaching decisions that benefit American businesses today and into the
future.
My name is Dr. Louis Gritzo. I am vice president of research for FM
Global, one of the world's largest commercial property insurers,
headquartered in Johnston, Rhode Island. My doctoral degree is in
mechanical engineering and mathematics, and I oversee a team of more
than 120 scientists and engineers who focus on property-loss prevention
with the aim of keeping our clients resilient, and therefore, in
business.
Approximately 1 of every 3 Fortune 1000 companies turns to FM
Global for protection against property loss and business interruption
related to fire, natural hazards, equipment failure, and cyber attack.
Since we are a mutual insurer, every client is also an owner of our
company.
FM Global and its policyholders are deeply concerned about the
serious and growing risk of flooding to U.S. businesses. It is a big
priority for our clients, especially because more than 10,000 of the
commercial properties they insure with us in the U.S. are located in
flood zones.
FM Global has been working to prevent, and insure for, commercial
property loss since 1835, when mills sprouted along the nation's rivers
at the dawn of the U.S. industrial revolution. Our founder, Zachariah
Allen, was a Rhode Island textile mill owner who joined forces with
other like-minded mill owners who insured one another in a mutual
company and collectively reduced their property risks by engineering
resilience into their business locations and operations.
We take a unique engineering approach to understand and reduce
risk, giving us unparalleled insight into the threats and opportunities
that businesses face with respect to today's perils. We embrace this
property-loss prevention role and have shared our proprietary research
and data publicly for use by property owners, code enforcement bodies
and product developers. Our efforts are most successful when they
complement investment by local, state and federal government. When
structured correctly, such public-private partnerships can be extremely
successful.
Floodwaters' rising threat to American business
Flooding, as has been painfully evident in the past few years, is a
serious threat to the nation's economic well-being and the livelihoods
of its citizens. The risk is getting worse due to heavier rains from a
warming climate and an increasingly developed and hardened landscape.
Nonetheless, FM Global believes that much of the loss caused by
nature's hazards is preventable, not inevitable. History confirms this
premise in cases where the risks are recognized, understood and
properly addressed.
Our loss-prevention approach for flood and all other property risks
throughout the world is uniquely rooted in developing engineering
solutions that drive out risk for commercial property owners. Our 1,300
engineers around the world make upwards of 100,000 visits to client
properties every year, conducting thorough risk assessments and
providing solutions tailored to each site.
When this work relates to flood risk in the United States, our
engineers apply flood maps created by FEMA, as well as our own physics-
based flood maps, to address the hazard. Then we drill into the
details: Which properties are exposed? Which parts of each exposed
property are threatened? How deep could the water get? What damage
would it do? How much would the damage cost? And how much would
eliminating or mitigating the risk cost?
We underwrite the risk based on scientific principles and
engineering assessments, not actuarial tables. It has been a successful
business model that our client-owners appreciate and from which they
have benefited financially. Science and engineering are also superior
to actuarial tables because the future of the climate and business
world will be very different from the past.
Quantify the risk
For each location of every business we insure, and every hazard
that each property faces, we create a loss expectancy. For example, our
engineers may determine that seven out of 10 buildings on a client's
corporate campus lie in a flood zone. The loss expectancy will include
a dollar amount associated with that flood risk (e.g., that a flood
will likely cause $10 million in property damage and business
interruption to an affected building).
Then we make recommendations to help clients cost-effectively
mitigate their risk. Our flood-related recommendations for a client may
involve many different loss-prevention actions as detailed in the loss-
prevention engineering guidelines \1\ we make freely available on our
website. These data sheets include advice on how to site new
construction (e.g., on higher ground), better manage stormwater runoff,
elevate key equipment, install flood protection valves/gates, or
acquire temporary protection systems, such as barriers or inflatable
dams. In order for a business to implement these recommendations, they
must be cost-effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fmglobal.com/research-and-resources/fm-global-data-
sheets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our recommendations must also significantly reduce the loss, as was
borne out during Hurricane Harvey. In that storm, clients who followed
our recommendations for physical improvements to prevent flood losses
experienced losses that were 80% lower than those of clients who did
not. We believe this approach, as part of a public-private partnership,
can inform public efforts to significantly reduce loss to American
business on a national scale.
Of course, not all loss is preventable. That's why we work with our
clients to capture whatever fraction of coverage is available through
the National Flood Insurance Program, and then to use our own insurance
to transfer any remaining risk.
Unfortunately, even the most comprehensive insurance policies fail
to cover the total financial loss when flood damage disrupts a
business. A disruption not only affects immediate revenue. It takes a
longer-term toll on market share, shareholder value, supply chain
integrity, reputation, investor confidence and growth. In aggregate,
these long-term losses to U.S. businesses erode our country's economic
competitiveness.
Furthermore, any disruption at any company is a serious setback
that affects not only the business owners, but the regional economy and
community, including families depending on paychecks from an employer.
Since insurance alone is not enough to make a company and community
fully whole again, the best solution is minimizing loss in the first
place.
Flood loss prevention infrastructure policy update needed
A wide range of strategies is available to mitigate flood damage,
including wise urban planning and environmental solutions such as
conserving wetlands. For many commercial properties, the first line of
prevention is levees. FM Global frequently works with clients and local
authorities to assess levees and other flood management solutions. When
these measures are well-designed and maintained, they are quite
effective in preventing loss. Maintenance, however, is often
underfunded, jeopardizing people who depend on these prevention measure
for protection. Building on high ground is always best, though it's not
always available or affordable.
Our experience working with business is consistent with the 2017
Infrastructure Report Card \2\ published by the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), which says an estimated $80 billion is needed
in the next 10 years to maintain and improve the nation's levees. We
and our clients understand the solution is not a simple case of federal
funding for federally owned levees: More than half of levees we
encounter are owned by states and localities, which have limited
budgets for repair and maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/
2017/01/Levees-Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levees and other flood solutions need to be strategically
developed. The U.S. needs a cohesive flood-loss prevention policy for
designing, implementing and maintaining regional systems for our
largest flood-exposed areas. Whatever the cost of developing this
policy, it is likely to be offset by avoided loss and economic
stability for flood-prone regions.
Business actions mitigate flood risk
When flooding is imminent, the property owner must act. Much of the
flood-mitigation equipment a Fortune 1000-size company might use to
protect its property from floodwaters is tested and certified by FM
Approvals,\3\ an FM Global business unit and global leader in third-
party product testing and certification services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.fmapprovals.com/products-we-certify/products-we-
certify/flood-mitigation-products
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FM Approvals, a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory by
OSHA,\4\ has developed the widely adopted industry standard for flood
barriers, the American National Standard for Flood Abatement Equipment,
ANSI/FM 2510,\5\ and conducts testing in part for these products at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This activity is a
central part of the National Flood Barrier Testing and Certification
Program.\6\ The program--a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers and FM
Approvals--assures property owners that certified flood-loss prevention
products meet the highest property-protection performance standards
and, hence, will perform as intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html
\5\ https://www.fmapprovals.com/approval-standards
\6\ https://nationalfloodbarrier.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, FM Approvals has certified more than 60 flood barrier
products according to the ANSI/FM 2510 standard. These products--
typically superior to sandbags in ease of use, performance and
reliability--are allowed to be labeled by the manufacturer as FM
Approved.
Flood-loss prevention solutions that can be tested and certified to
ANSI/FM 2510 include:

Perimeter barriers--Emergency structures that when
deployed, are intended to protect buildings and equipment from rising
water. These temporary perimeter barriers have been evaluated for their
ability to control riverine- or rainfall-related flood conditions.
Opening barriers--Permanent or temporary devices, such as
flexible walls or stackable aluminum gates, that prevent floodwater
passage through doors, windows, vents and other openings in a building.
Flood mitigation valves--Devices that block floodwaters
from entering buildings through overwhelmed drainage systems. These
valves prevent buildings from flooding from the inside out.
Flood mitigation pumps--Devices that remove water that
has already entered buildings, and that help mitigate damage from
corrosion and mold.
Penetration sealing devices--Products that are used to
seal small openings in a building.
Flood glazing--Reinforced glass structures used in urban
settings, that serve as flood barriers.
Contributing to the public domain
FM Global contributes research-related resources freely to the
public to help businesses beyond our own clients mitigate flood risk.
Among our contributions:

Flood maps--Our Global Flood Map \7\ is a strategic
planning tool that helps American businesses address flood exposure at
all their locations. Based on hydrologic and hydraulic models, it uses
past and current climate data, including rainfall, evaporation,
snowmelt and terrain--not just event history. The online interactive
map provides a view of high- and moderate-hazard flood zones across the
globe, including in previously uncharted territories. In the United
States, we use FEMA's flood map as the primary source and our Global
Flood Map as a secondary source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.fmglobal.com/globalfloodmap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property loss prevention data sheets--We have produced
more than 350 engineering guidelines \8\ based on our own research,
loss experience and engineering knowledge. These data sheets give
businesses proven engineering solutions and recognized standards to
help them mitigate a wide range of property risks, including flood,
fire, natural hazards and cyber attack, and also to inform national and
global building codes and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.fmglobaldatasheets.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, testing and education--We study flood dynamics
and protection at our 1,600-acre FM Global Research Campus \9\ in West
Glocester, Rhode Island. It's the world's premier center for property-
loss prevention scientific research and product testing. The Research
Campus includes a Natural Hazards Laboratory for assessing hazards and
developing loss- prevention solutions for hurricanes, hailstorms,
earthquakes and floods. Much of this work is shared with governments to
inform building and fire codes around the world. The Research Campus is
also a resource for manufacturers seeking third-party certifications of
their products through FM Approvals. Finally, we conduct extensive
computational and fundamental research and educational activities in
Norwood, Massachusetts, where we have offices, laboratories, a learning
center for employees and clients, and the SimZone, which is a
collection of experiential learning labs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.fmglobal.com/research-and-resources/research-and-
testing/fm-global-research-campus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmet needs
We believe private sector efforts like these are most effective
when supported by congruent government policy, planning and resources.
Thus, we deeply value our collaboration with the federal government,
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA. As FM Global looks
to the future of increasing flood risk, we see two major unmet needs:
1) protections against higher flood depths; and 2) the improved use of
technology for flood monitoring and mapping.
Of the over 10,000 U.S. business locations that have been
identified by FM Global engineers as being exposed to flood hazards,
more than 1 in 4 may experience flood depths greater than 3 feet, the
limit of flood barriers tested at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Thus, we consider any flood mitigation device
intended to withstand floodwaters above 3 feet experimental, and, by
definition, risky to use. Accordingly, we would support an improvement
in the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center laboratory to
enable testing of solutions to address higher floodwaters. Such a
capability would enable significant enhancements to the resilience of
American businesses.
Taking advantage of new technology
Another potential area of collaboration is improving the ability to
apply current and future advanced technology to improve early flood
warning, to better respond to floods in progress, and to improve long-
term planning. These improvements include deployment of both on-the-
ground and remote sensing at greater scale, the ability to transfer and
openly communicate information, and the ability to allow more
innovation in loss prevention products based on greater real-time
insight.
Achieving this goal will require investment in sensors and systems,
and better data and imaging technology, to be used in conjunction with
geographic information system (GIS) technology to make businesses more
agile and successful in their loss-prevention efforts. We believe a
strategic public-private-academic partnership to fully develop and
deploy improved technology at scale will better allow the country to
control its fate as it becomes more vulnerable to flood risk.
Choosing resilience
When it comes to our nation's flood resilience, the risk for
American businesses is real. Insurance is not enough. Yet, through
science and tested solutions, as well as strong and sustained public-
private partnerships, together we can better assess risks and develop a
national strategy to reduce them, thereby preserving and enhancing U.S.
economic competitiveness.
Elected officials are uniquely positioned to make far-reaching
risk-reducing policy based on research. In partnership with American
business, they can choose prevention over wishful thinking, and
continue supporting the U.S. Army Corps to engineer flood resilience
into every corner of our nation--and to drive risk out.
Driving risk out before catastrophe occurs: That's what the
savviest, most successful businesses do.
These savvy businesses realize that resilience isn't luck. It's a
choice our country has to make, and if we choose wisely and work
together, our nation will continue to thrive in the face of an
increasing threat.
Thank you for considering my testimony, and for the opportunity to
meet you today in person.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, your testimony is very
nice.
We will move on to Ms. Samet. You are recognized.
Ms. Samet. Chair Napolitano, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Westerman and members of the subcommittee, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Melissa Samet. I am the senior water resources
counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, which is the
Nation's largest education and advocacy organization,
conservation education and advocacy organization.
I want to start by highlighting a reality that often does
not get the attention it requires. Our Nation's water resources
infrastructure does not consist only of locks, dams, levees and
other man-made structures, it also includes our rivers,
streams, flood plains and wetlands, those systems that form our
vital natural infrastructure, which is so essential for people
and wildlife.
Protecting and investing in natural infrastructure from
coastal wetlands to rivers and their flood plains is a win for
wildlife and our communities. Natural infrastructure makes
communities safer and more resilient by absorbing flood waters
and buffering storm surges. Natural infrastructure reduces the
need for new, often expensive structural projects and provides
an important extra line of defense when levees or other
structures are required.
The diverse environmental benefits provided by sustainable
and cost-effective natural infrastructure can be particularly
valuable for underserved communities suffering from flooding
and multiple other environmental assaults. Natural
infrastructure has long been recognized as both highly
effective and cost effective.
A 1972 Corps of Engineers study of the Charles River in
Massachusetts concluded, and I am quoting, ``nature has already
provided the least-cost solution to future flooding in the form
of extensive riverine wetlands which moderate extreme highs and
lows in streamflow,'' end quote. The Corps then found that it
was both prudent and economical to protect these wetlands
instead of building a new flood control dam. And that is
exactly what the Corps did at a fraction of the cost of the
structural project.
The value of natural infrastructure was on display during
Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy and Harvey. The horrific impacts of
those storms would have been even worse without the coastal and
inland wetlands and green spaces that provided significant and
demonstrable protections.
A study released last year shows that natural
infrastructure would be far more cost effective than levees and
dikes for reducing coastal flood risks in Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Florida. The average benefit-cost ratio for
nature-based solutions was found to be 3.5, compared to just
0.26 for levees and dikes. Restoring wetlands in this region
could prevent $18.2 billion in losses while costing just $2
billion to carry out.
While structural flood projects are absolutely necessary
and appropriate in some cases, they should be the option of
last, not first resort; an option that is used only if a
comprehensive assessment demonstrates that natural
infrastructure either alone or in combination with structural
projects will not work.
Our written testimony details a number of recommendations
that would improve the resilience of our natural infrastructure
and help prevent Corps projects and operations from undermining
that resilience. First, we recommend that the Congress create
natural infrastructure incentives for communities and other
non-Federal sponsors, with a special focus on at-risk and
underserved communities. Second, we recommend planning reforms
that would help the Corps better identify impacts to natural
infrastructure and better mitigate those impacts if they cannot
be avoided, as has long been required by Federal law. Third, we
recommend improvements to the way the Corps accounts for
project costs and benefits, including accounting for lost
ecosystem services as a project cost, and increases in
ecosystem services as a project benefit, to make sure that
natural infrastructure is properly accounted for in the
benefit-cost analysis. Fourth, we recommend creation of an
ecological services directorate within the Office of the Chief
of Engineers to increase the Corps' capacity to take full
advantage of existing programs, authorities and operations to
protect natural infrastructure and minimize expenditures for
emergency response and rebuilding. And notably, some of the
Corps' actions actually increase flooding in some areas and
increase drought in other areas and those issues really do need
to be addressed.
The National Wildlife Federation respectfully urges the
committee to adopt these recommendations that will provide
important benefits that will run across all of the Corps'
business lines.
I want to thank you for the opportunity again to present
this testimony and I look forward to your questions.
[Ms. Samet's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Melissa Samet, Senior Water Resources Counsel,
National Wildlife Federation
Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
on the vital issue of improving the resilience of our nation's water
resources infrastructure.
The National Wildlife Federation is the nation's largest
conservation education and advocacy organization with 6 million members
and supporters, and affiliate conservation organizations in 52 states
and territories. Our members represent the full spectrum of people who
care deeply about wildlife: they are bird and wildlife watchers,
hikers, gardeners, anglers, hunters, foresters, and farmers. The
National Wildlife Federation has championed clean and healthy rivers
and streams since our founding in 1936. Conserving our wetlands,
streams, rivers, and shorelines for wildlife and communities is at the
core of our mission.
The National Wildlife Federation has extensive experience with all
aspects of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) planning, including
ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, navigation, and
reservoir operations. We also have the benefit of understanding needed
water resources project and policy improvements from hundreds of
organizations across the country. The Federation leads the Water
Protection Network, a coalition of more than 250 local, regional, and
national organizations working to ensure that America's water resources
policies and projects are environmentally and economically sound. The
Federation also has a long history working on large-scale ecosystem
restoration efforts around the country that involve the Corps,
including in the Everglades and Mississippi River Delta.
Healthy rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and shorelines are essential
for resilient communities, resilient populations of fish and wildlife,
and a vibrant outdoor economy. These natural systems also reduce the
need for structural flood and storm damage reduction projects and
improve the effectiveness and resilience of levees and other water
resources infrastructure. As we anticipate more frequent and severe
storms and weather events, it is essential that we consider all tools
at our disposal, including the use of natural systems to help absorb
floodwaters and buffer communities.
The value of natural systems for protecting communities is well
recognized. In a 1972 study evaluating options to reduce flooding along
Charles River in Massachusetts, the Corps concluded:

``Nature has already provided the least-cost solution to future
flooding in the form of extensive [riverine] wetlands which
moderate extreme highs and lows in streamflow. Rather than
attempt to improve on this natural protection mechanism, it is
both prudent and economical to leave the hydrologic regime
established over millennia undisturbed.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Rivers, Unnatural Disasters, Natural Solutions:
Lessons From The Flooding Of New Orleans (2006) (quoting USACE, from
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Functions of Riparian Areas
for Flood Control, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/pdf/
riparian_factsheet_1.pdf.)

Wetlands prevented $625 million in flood damages in the 12 coastal
states affected by Hurricane Sandy, and reduced damages by 20 to 30
percent in the four states with the greatest wetland coverage.\2\
Coastal wetlands reduced storm surge in some New Orleans neighborhoods
by two to three feet during Hurricane Katrina, and levees with wetland
buffers had a much greater chance of surviving Katrina's fury than
levees without wetland buffers.\3\ As aptly noted by the Reinsurance
Association of America: ``One cannot overstate the value of preserving
our natural systems for the protection of people and property from
catastrophic events.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Narayan, S., Beck, M.B., Wilson, P., et al., The Value of
Coastal Wetlands for Flood Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA.
Scientific Reports 7, Article number 9463 (2017), doi:10.1038/s41598-
017-09269-z (available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-
09269-z).
\3\ Bob Marshall, Studies abound on why the levees failed. But
researchers point out that some levees held fast because wetlands
worked as buffers during Katrina's storm surge, The New Orleans Times-
Picayune (March 23, 2006).
\4\ Restore America's Estuaries, Jobs & Dollars BIG RETURNS from
coastal habitat restoration (September 14, 2011) (http://
www.estuaries.org/images/81103-RAE_17_FINAL_web.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through our extensive experience with Corps projects across the
country--and with communities affected by those projects--it is clear
that the Corps must do much more to protect, restore, and use healthy
natural systems. To help ensure that the Corps can achieve these vital
goals, the National Wildlife Federation respectfully urges Congress to
continue to advance important ecosystem restoration projects and enact
the following new policy reforms to:

Mainstream the Corps' Use of Natural Infrastructure:
Natural infrastructure is a critical, but underused, tool for reducing
flood and storm damages while also increasing resilience. Congress
should create incentives for non-federal sponsors to increase
consideration of natural infrastructure solutions by: (1) clarifying
that natural infrastructure solutions are subject to the decade-old
limitation on the total non-federal cost share for non-structural
measures, which eliminates the potential for excessive land-related
cost burdens on non-federal sponsors; and (2) facilitating full
consideration of cost-effective flood and storm damage reduction
solutions for at-risk communities by adopting targeted criteria for
waiving the non-federal cost share for feasibility studies while also
requiring that those studies fully evaluate natural infrastructure
solutions that can provide sustainable and less expensive protections.
Ensure Effective Mitigation and Analysis of Fish and
Wildlife Impacts in Accordance with Long-Standing Legal Requirements:
Congress should ensure projects properly account for and address harm
to fish and wildlife by: (1) clarifying the types of project studies
that trigger the civil works mitigation requirements to ensure
application of these requirements as Congress unquestionably intended;
and (2) directing the Corps to evaluate and develop mitigation for fish
and wildlife resources in a manner that is consistent with
recommendations developed by federal and state fish and wildlife
experts pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act that derive
from the special expertise of these experts (e.g., methods and metrics
for evaluating fish and wildlife impacts and needed mitigation).
Failure to adequately mitigate impacts significantly undermines the
resilience of the nation's fish and wildlife.
Accurately Account for Project Costs and Benefits,
Including Ecosystem Services Lost and Gained: Congress should modernize
the criteria used to assess costs and benefits when planning federal
water resources projects, including by accounting for increased
ecosystem services as a project benefit and lost ecosystem services as
a project cost. Fully accounting for costs and benefits is critical for
making effective decisions regarding the planning, construction,
budgeting, prioritization, and authorization of Corps projects to
increase resilience. Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect
contributions that ecosystems provide to our well-being, including
benefits like flood control, water purification, and habitat for
wildlife.
Increase the Corps' Capacity to Improve the Resilience of
Water Resources Infrastructure, Including By Taking Full Advantage of
Existing Authorities: Congress should establish a Directorate of
Ecological Services within the Office of the Chief of Engineers tasked
with ensuring that the Corps takes full advantage of existing programs,
authorities, and operations to use natural systems to protect
communities from floods, minimize expenditures for emergency response
and rebuilding, improve wildlife habitat, and strengthen the outdoor-
based economy. This Directorate should have significant budgeting
authority. Corps planning is hampered by an organizational structure
that prevents the agency from creating and taking advantage of critical
opportunities to effectively utilize the extensive public safety and
wildlife benefits provided by healthy natural systems.

Protecting the nation's waters and increasing the resilience of the
nation's water resources infrastructure will also require Congress to
defend the integrity of the laws that drive these outcomes, including
the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the
Endangered Species Act. We also urge this committee to carefully
oversee the Corps' compliance with the letter and spirit of these laws
when planning, constructing, and operating projects.
In our testimony below, we describe the multiple benefits provided
by healthy natural systems that are essential for resilient
communities, wildlife, and water resources infrastructure. We then
highlight the need to advance key ecosystem restoration projects to
restore healthy systems, and provide more detailed explanations of the
policy reforms outlined above.
1. Healthy Natural Systems Provide Multiple Benefits for People and
Wildlife
Healthy natural systems provide multiple benefits for communities,
wildlife, and the outdoor economy. Protecting, restoring, and using
healthy systems to protect communities will increase the resilience of
the nation's water resources infrastructure.
Healthy Natural Systems Protect Communities
As highlighted earlier in this testimony, natural healthy natural
systems provide critical protections for the communities. Healthy
rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and shorelines can significantly reduce
the need for new flood and storm damage reduction projects, and provide
important protections for structural projects like levees and
floodwalls.
For example, wetlands act as natural sponges, storing and slowly
releasing floodwaters after peak flood flows have passed, and coastal
wetlands buffer the onslaught of hurricanes and tropical storms. A
single acre of wetland can store one million gallons of floodwaters.\5\
Just a 1 percent loss of a watershed's wetlands can increase total
flood volume by almost seven percent.\6\ Restoring a river's natural
flow and meandering channel, and giving at least some floodplain back
to the river, slows down floodwaters and gives the river room to spread
out without harming homes and businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wetlands: Protecting Life
and Property from Flooding.'' EPA 843-F-06-001. (2006) (factsheet).
\6\ Demissie, M. and Abdul Khan. 1993. ``Influence of Wetlands on
Streamflow in Illinois.'' Illinois State Water Survey, Contract Report
561, Champaign, IL, Table 7, pp. 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands prevented $625 million in flood damages in the 12 coastal
states affected by Hurricane Sandy, and reduced damages by 20% to 30%
in the four states with the greatest wetland coverage.\7\ Coastal
wetlands reduced storm surge in some New Orleans neighborhoods by two
to three feet during Hurricane Katrina, and levees with wetland buffers
had a much greater chance of surviving Katrina's fury than levees
without wetland buffers.\8\ California's wetlands provide an estimated
$16.6 billion in benefits each year (in 2013 dollars) by reducing flood
damages, recharging groundwater, purifying water supplies, providing
recreational opportunities, and supporting healthy populations of fish
and wildlife.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Narayan, S., Beck, M.B., Wilson, P., et al., The Value of
Coastal Wetlands for Flood Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA.
Scientific Reports 7, Article number 9463 (2017), doi:10.1038/s41598-
017-09269-z (available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-
09269-z).
\8\ Bob Marshall, Studies abound on why the levees failed. But
researchers point out that some levees held fast because wetlands
worked as buffers during Katrina's storm surge, The New Orleans Times-
Picayune (March 23, 2006).
\9\ Harold Mooney and Erika Zavalata (editors), Ecosystems of
California, University of California Press (2016) at 684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy Natural Systems Sustain Wildlife
Healthy rivers, floodplains, and wetlands provide vital fish and
wildlife habitat and allow people and wildlife to benefit from natural
flood cycles. In a healthy, functioning river system, precipitation
events and other natural increases in water flow can deposit nutrients
along floodplains creating fertile soil for bottomland hardwood
forests. Sediment transported by these increased flows form islands and
back channels that are home to fish, birds, and other wildlife. By
scouring out river channels and riparian areas, these events prevent
rivers from becoming overgrown with vegetation. They also facilitate
breeding and migration for a host of fish species, and provide vital
connectivity between habitat areas. In the deltas at the mouths of
rivers, increased flows release freshwater and sediment, sustaining and
renewing wetlands that protect coastal communities from storms and
provide nurseries for multibillion dollar fisheries.
Wetlands are some of the most biologically productive natural
ecosystems in the world, and support an incredibly diverse and
extensive array of fish and wildlife. America's wetlands support
millions of migratory birds and waterfowl. Up to one-half of all North
American bird species rely on wetlands. Although wetlands account for
just about 5 percent of land area in the lower 48 states, those
wetlands are the only habitat for more than one third of the nation's
threatened and endangered species and support an additional 20 percent
of the nation's threatened and endangered at some time in their life.
These same wetlands are home to 31 percent of the nation's plant
species.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Benefits of
Wetlands, EPA843-F-06-004 (May, 2006) (factsheet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy Natural Systems Drive the Outdoor Economy
Healthy rivers, floodplains, and wetlands are economic drivers for
outdoor recreation and commercial fishery-based economies. Projects
that restore those resources are also an important creator of jobs that
are by necessity local and cannot be exported.
For example, wetlands are an economic driver for fish and wildlife
associated recreation. Hundreds of species of birds, waterfowl, and
wildlife and 90 percent of fish caught by America's recreational
anglers are wetland dependent. In 2016, fishing, hunting, and other
wildlife-associated recreation contributed $156.3 billion to the
national economy. ``This equates to 1% of Gross Domestic Product; one
out of every one hundred dollars of all goods and services produced in
the U.S. is due to wildlife-related recreation.'' Anglers alone spent
``$46.1 billion on trips, equipment, licenses, and other items to
support their fishing activities'' while people who ``fed,
photographed, and observed wildlife,'' spent $75.9 billion on those
activities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: National
Overview, Issued August 2017. This study is the source for all quotes
and data in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ninety five percent of commercially harvested fish and shellfish
are wetland dependent. Healthy coasts ``supply key habitat for over 75%
of our nation's commercial fish catch and 80-90% of the recreational
fish catch.'' \12\ Healthy rivers are equally important to these
fisheries and the economic benefits they provide. Commercial fishing in
the Apalachicola River and Bay (which relies on river flows to remain
healthy) contributes $200 million annually to the regional economy and
directly supports up to 85 percent of the local population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Restore America's Estuaries, Jobs & Dollars BIG RETURNS from
coastal habitat restoration (September 14, 2011) (http://
www.estuaries.org/images/81103-RAE_17_FINAL_web.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects that restore natural systems also create jobs. Restore
America's Estuaries reports that coastal restoration ``can create more
than 30 jobs for each million dollars invested'' which is ``more than
twice as many jobs as the oil and gas and road construction industries
combined.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Louisiana, a proposed $72 million project to restore a 30,000-
acre expanse of degraded marsh near downtown New Orleans known as the
Central Wetlands Unit would create 689 jobs (280 direct jobs and 400
indirect and induced jobs) over the project's life.\14\ Implementation
of the entire $25 billion dollars of restoration in Louisiana's Master
Plan over the next fifty years would multiply those jobs hundreds of
times over. In Florida, restoration of the Everglades will produce more
than 442,000 jobs over the next 50 years and almost 23,000 short- to
mid-term jobs for the actual restoration work. Restoring the Everglades
is also predicted to produce a return of four dollars for each dollar
invested.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Environmental Defense Fund, Profiles in Restoration: The
Central Wetlands Unit, Part VI (May 3, 2010) (http://blogs.edf.org/
restorationandresilience/category/central-wetlands-unit/).
\15\ Everglades Foundation, Everglades Restoration a 4-to-1-
Investment (http://everglades.3cdn.net/
79a5b78182741ae87f_wvm6b3vhn.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal restoration projects carried out under the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal
Program in FY2011 returned $1.90 in economic activity for every dollar
spent on restoration. In California, the rate of return was $2.10 for
every dollar spent.\16\ The Department of the Interior's FY2010
investment of $156 million for ecosystem restoration activities in the
Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Everglades supported more than 3,200
jobs and contributed more than $427 million in economic outputs.\17\
The Department of the Interior supported 12 to 30 jobs for every
million dollars spent on restoration in FY2018.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Restoration Returns--The
Contribution of Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) and
Coastal Program Restoration Projects to Local US Economies, February
2014 (http://www.sfbayjv.org/resourcedocs/usfws-restoration-
returns.pdf).
\17\ The Department of the Interior's Economic Contributions
(Department of the Interior, 2011) at 5, 106 (http://www.doi.gov/news/
pressreleases/upload/DOI-Econ-Report-6-21-2011.pdf).
\18\ U.S. Department of the Interior Economic Report FY2018
(Department of the Interior, 2019) at 4 (https://doi.sciencebase.gov/
doidv/files/2018/pdf/FY%202018%20Econ%20Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Oregon, a $411 million investment in restoration from 2001 to
2010 generated an estimated $752 to $977 million in economic output.
The 6,740 restorations projects completed during that time supported an
estimated 4,600 to 6,500 jobs, including jobs in construction,
engineering, wildlife biology, and in supporting local businesses such
as plant nurseries and heavy equipment companies. On average, $0.80 of
every $1 spent on a restoration project in Oregon stays in the county
where the project is located and $0.90 stays in the state.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Whole Watershed Restoration Initiative, Oregon's Restoration
Economy, Investing in natural assets for the benefit of communities and
salmon (2012) (http://www.ecotrust.org/wwri/downloads/
WWRI_OR_brochure.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Congress Should Mainstream Use of Natural Infrastructure to Reduce
Flood Damages
America faces significant water resource challenges, driven in part
by more intense coastal storms, more frequent and severe flooding,
unprecedented droughts, and the unintended consequences from many
already-constructed water resources projects. Natural infrastructure is
a critical--but underused--tool for solving many of these challenges,
while also increasing resilience by protecting and improving the health
of the nation's rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and shorelines.
Natural infrastructure, both alone and in conjunction with
structural projects, provides important protections from storms and
floods. Natural infrastructure avoids the risks of catastrophic failure
and overtopping of levees, a risk that has caused the Association of
State Floodplain Managers to urge communities to use nonstructural
measures whenever possible instead of constructing new levees, which
should be limited to the option ``of last resort.'' \20\ Natural
infrastructure can also provide important buffers that increase the
effectiveness and resilience of structural measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Association of State Floodplain Managers White Paper, National
Flood Policy Challenges, Levees: The Double-edged Sword, Adopted
February 13, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many approaches to water resources planning can restore and protect
vital natural infrastructure. These include re-establishing the natural
form, function, hydrology, and inundation of rivers, floodplains, and
wetlands by removing or modifying levees (including moving levees
further away from the river, i.e., levee setbacks), dams, river
training structures, cut offs, and culverts. Other approaches include
purchasing flood or flowage easements; relocating flood-prone
properties; using wetland buffers to protect levees; placing
protections on wetlands and floodplains; utilizing water conservation
and efficiency measures; establishing a navigation scheduling process;
and improving management of existing water resources projects.
Living shorelines are an important example of natural
infrastructure. Living shorelines are constructed with natural
materials including vegetation, fiber logs, and marsh sills to protect
coasts from erosion.\21\ Living shorelines enhance coastal habitats,
including by creating nursery grounds for fish and shellfish, providing
feeding grounds for shorebirds and wading birds, and helping reduce
water pollution. Living shorelines can be more effective at preventing
erosion than structural projects and are highly resilient to storms, as
demonstrated by a substantial body of scientific literature. A survey
of the North Carolina coast after Hurricane Irene showed no visible
damage in living shoreline projects, while 76 percent of bulkheads
suffered damage.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ While living shorelines may not be appropriate everywhere,
they are a demonstrably viable, often more effective, and
environmentally-preferable alternative to traditional structural
projects like bulkheads.
\22\ S. Sharma et al., A Hybrid Shoreline Stabilization Technique:
Impact of Modified Intertidal Reefs on Marsh Expansion and Nekton
Habitat in Northern Gulf of Mexico, 90 Ecological Engineering, 339-50
(2016); Amanda S. Lawless et al., Effects of shoreline stabilization
and environmental variables on benthic infaunal communities in the
Lynnhaven River System of Chesapeake Bay, 457 J. of Experimental Marine
Biology & Ecology, 41-50 (2014); J. E. Manis et al., Wave Attenuation
Experiments Over Living Shorelines Over Time: A Wave Tank Study to
Assess Recreational Boating Pressures, 19 J. of Coastal Conservation,
1-11 (2015); S. Crooks & R. K. Turner, Integrated coastal management:
sustaining estuarine natural resources, in 29 Advances in Ecological
Res., 241-289 (Nedwell, and Raffaelli., eds. 1999); Rachel K. Gittman
et al., Marshes with and without Sills Protect Estuarine Shorelines
from Erosion Better than Bulkheads During a Category 1 Hurricane, 102
Ocean & Coastal Mgmt., 94-102 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is ample evidence that natural infrastructure solutions can
provide highly effective flood and storm damage reduction for
communities. For example:

In the Gulf Coast regions of Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Florida, nature-based solutions to reduce coastal
flood risks are significantly more cost effective than structural
solutions. A 2018 study shows that in this region, the average benefit-
cost ratio for nature-based solutions is 3.5 compared to 0.26 for
levees/dikes and 0.73 for home elevations. Restoring wetlands could
prevent $18.2 billion of losses while costing just $2 billion to carry
out. Restoring oyster reefs could prevent $9.7 billion in losses while
costing just $1.3 billion. Restoring barrier islands could prevent $5.9
billion in losses while costing just $1.2 billion.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Borja G. Reguero et al., ``Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of
Nature-Based and Coastal Adaptation: A Case Study from the Gulf Coast
of the United States,'' PLoS ONE 13, no. 4 (April 11, 2018), https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In southern California, the Surfers' Point Managed
Shoreline Retreat Project is restoring 1,800 feet of shoreline with
cobble beach and vegetated sand dunes east of the mouth of the Ventura
River to ``provide resilience and offset risk from sea level rise and
storms for 50 years'' while maintaining beach access and other coastal
resources. Since the project began, Surfers' Point has become Ventura
County's most visited beach. Even with only one of two phases
completed, the restored beach and dunes withstood 2015-2016 winter high
wave conditions without damage, while other locations such as the
Ventura Pier and promenade were damaged and the Pierpont neighborhood
east of the project site was inundated.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Jean Judge et al., ``Surfers' Point Managed Shoreline Retreat
Project,'' in Case Studies of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure in
Coastal California: A Component of Identification of Natural
Infrastructure Options for Adapting to Sea Level Rise (California's
Fourth Climate Change Assessment). (The Nature Conservancy, 2017), 9-
15, https://scc.ca.gov/files/2017/11/tnc_Natural-Shoreline-Case-
Study_hi.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In northern California, the Napa Valley Flood Control
Project is using a community-developed ``living river'' plan to reduce
flood damages along the flood-prone Napa River. This plan replaces the
Corps' originally-proposed floodwalls and levees with terraced marshes,
wider wetland barriers, and restored riparian zones. The Project will
restore more than 650 acres of high-value tidal wetlands of the San
Francisco Bay Estuary while protecting 2,700 homes, 350 businesses, and
over 50 public properties from 100-year flood levels, saving $26
million annually in flood damage costs.\25\ Though only partially
complete, the project was credited for lowering flood levels by about 2
to 3 feet during the 2006 New Year's Day flood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Napa County California website at https://
www.countyofnapa.org/1096/Creating-Flood-Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Florida, the Corps is using wetland restoration in the
Upper St. John's River floodplain to provide important flood damage
reduction benefits. The backbone of this project is restoration of
200,000 acres of floodplain which will hold more than 500,000 acre-feet
of water--enough to cover 86 square miles with 10 feet of water--and
will accommodate surface water runoff from a more than 2,000 square
mile area. The Corps predicts that this $200 million project will
reduce flood damages by $215 million during a 100-year flood event, and
provide average annual benefits of $14 million. This project was
authorized by Congress in 1986 to reduce flood damages along the river.
In Illinois, a 2014 study conducted for the Chicago
Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision, found that natural systems are
the least costly and most efficient way to control flooding. Wetlands
in the seven-county Chicago metropolitan area provide an average
$22,000 of benefits per acre each year in water flow regulation. This
study also found that watersheds with 30 percent wetland or lake areas
saw flood peaks that were 60 to 80 percent lower than watersheds
without such coverage, and that preventing building in floodplain areas
could save an average of $900 per acre per year in flood damages.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Will Allen, Ted Weber, and Jazmin Varela, Green Infrastructure
Vision: Version 2.3: Ecosystem Service Valuation. (The Conservation
Fund: 2014), 13-15, https://datahub.cmap.illinois.gov/dataset/c303fd2e-
beaf-4a75-a9ec-b27c6da49b69/resource/028c9b69-bb19-425e-bb92-
3d33656bea4c/download/
tcfcmapgiv23ecosystemservicesfinalreport201412v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Iowa, the purchase of 12,000 acres in easements along
the 45-mile Iowa River corridor saved local communities an estimated
$7.6 million in flood damages as of 2009. The easement purchase effort
began after the historic 1993 floods when river communities in east-
central Iowa recognized the need for a more effective approach to
reducing flood damages.
In Massachusetts, a 1972 Corps study showed that upstream
wetlands were playing a critical role in reducing flooding in the
middle and upper reaches of the Charles River by storing millions of
gallons of water and preventing $17 million each year in flood damages.
This led the Corps to preserve 8,000 floodplain acres to ensure future
flood storage, at a cost of just one-tenth of the structural project it
had previously planned to build. This approach was sanctioned by
Congress in 1974 when it authorized the Charles River Natural Valley
Storage Area. These floodplain wetlands are credited with reducing
major floods, including in 1979, 1982, and 2006. The Corps estimates
that this project has prevented $11.9 million in flood damages while
providing recreational benefits valued at between $3.2 and $4.6
million.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ American Rivers, Unnatural Disasters, Natural Solutions:
Lessons From The Flooding Of New Orleans (2006) (Charles River Valley
Natural Storage Area case study); and https://www.arcgis.com/apps/
MapJournal/index.html?appid=0bf97d033a8642b18c2e8075d4b5ecfe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New York, restoration of wetlands and lands adjacent
to 19 stream corridors in Staten Island ``successfully removed the
scourge of regular flooding from southeastern Staten Island, while
saving the City $300 million in costs of constructing storm water
sewers.'' \28\ Some 400 acres of freshwater wetland and riparian stream
habitat has been restored along 11 miles of stream corridors that
collectively drain about one third of Staten Island's land area. A 2018
study commissioned by the City of New York found that using ``hybrid
infrastructure'' that combines nature, nature-based, and gray
infrastructure together could save Howard Beach, Queens $225 million in
damages in a 100-year storm while also generating important ecosystem
services.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Cooper Union, Institute for Sustainable Design, The Staten
Island Bluebelt: A Study In Sustainable Water Management (http://
cooper.edu/isd/news/waterwatch/statenisland). These effort was started
in 1990.
\29\ The Nature Conservancy, Urban Coastal Resilience: Valuing
Nature's Role. (2015), https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/
en/documents/urban-coastal-resilience.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Oregon, the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
restored 63 acres of wetland and floodplain habitat, restored 15 miles
of Johnson Creek, and move structures out of high risk areas to reduce
flood damages in the Johnson Creek neighborhood. In January 2012, when
heavy rainfall caused Johnson Creek to rise two feet above its historic
flood stage, the restored site held the floodwaters, keeping nearby
homes dry and local businesses open. An ecosystem services valuation of
the restored area found that the project would provide $30 million in
benefits (in 2004 dollars) over 100 years through avoided property and
utility damages, avoided traffic delays, improved water and air
quality, increased recreational opportunities, and healthy fish and
wildlife habitat.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Johnson Creek Restoration, Portland, Oregon,'' Naturally
Resilient Communities, accessed November 12, 2019, http://
nrcsolutions.org/johnson-creek-restoration-portland-oregon/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Texas, restoration of a 178-acre urban wetland--
formerly an abandoned golf course--acted as a sponge to store 100
million gallons of water during Hurricane Harvey, protecting 150 homes
in Houston's Clear Lake community from serious flooding. This project
will store up to a half billion gallons of water and protect up to
3,000 homes when it is completed in 2021.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Exploration Green, 2018, https://www.explorationgreen.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Vermont, a vast network of floodplains and wetlands,
including those protected by 23 conservation easements protecting 2,148
acres of wetland along Otter Creek, saved Middlebury $1.8 million in
flood damages during Tropical Storm Irene, and between $126,000 and
$450,000 during each of 10 other flood events. Just 30 miles upstream,
in an area without such floodplain and wetland protections, Tropical
Storm Irene caused extensive flooding to the city of Rutland.

While sometimes necessary and appropriate, large scale structural
projects, on the other hand, typically cause significant harm to the
environment and can have negative secondary effects. For example, such
projects often increase flooding downstream, induce development in high
risk areas, and come with the very real risk of catastrophic failure
and overtopping endangering surrounding communities.
The National Wildlife Federation appreciates the WRDA 2018
provision that directs the Corps to consider the use of natural
infrastructures, alone or in combination with structural measures,
whenever those solutions ``are practicable.'' \32\ Despite this, the
Corps continues to fail to adequately consider natural infrastructure
solutions where they are practicable for storm and flood damage
reduction.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Pub. Law 115-270,
1149(c).
\33\ The Corps' implementing guidance states that this WRDA 2018
provision requires no changes at all in the way the Corps plans
projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Implementation Guidance for
Section 1149 of the WRDA of 2018 (April 12, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, it is clear that Congress will need to take additional
steps to ensure that the Corps mainstreams the use of natural
infrastructure solutions. One approach is to create natural
infrastructure incentives for non-federal sponsors by: (1) clarifying
that natural infrastructure solutions are subject to the decade-old
limitation on the total non-federal cost share for non-structural
measures, which eliminates the potential for excessive land-related
cost burdens on non-federal sponsors; and (2) facilitating full
consideration of cost-effective flood and storm damage reduction
solutions for at-risk communities by adopting targeted criteria for
waiving the non-federal cost share for feasibility studies while also
requiring that those studies fully evaluate natural infrastructure
solutions that can provide sustainable and less expensive protections.
3. Congress Should Ensure Continued Progress on Ecosystem Restoration
Projects
The National Wildlife Federation greatly appreciates the
committee's role in overseeing the Corps' implementation of important
projects designed to restore the nation's waters. We urge Congress to
ensure that the Corps continues to advance important ecosystem
restoration projects, including those designed to restore coastal
Louisiana and America's Everglades.
Restoring Coastal Louisiana
As a partner in the Restore the Mississippi River Delta Coalition,
the National Wildlife Federation has worked for years to restore
critical habitat in coastal Louisiana. The Louisiana Coast is in the
midst of a land loss crisis with dramatic implications for our national
economy and world class natural resources. Since the 1930s, the state
has lost about 1,900 square miles of land to the Gulf. Recent
catastrophes, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the Deepwater
Horizon oil disaster, exacerbated the coastal crisis. Without action,
Louisiana is projected to lose up to another 4,000 square miles within
the next 50 years.
In Title VII of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
Congress authorized the Louisiana Coastal Area program, consisting of
high priority projects for slowing the current trend of coast-wide
wetland loss and resource degradation. Despite the fact that these
projects were found to be in the federal interest, very little federal
money has been appropriated to the Louisiana Coastal Area program since
its authorization. Instead, several of the projects it contains, though
renamed, have been advanced by the state with oil spill settlement
dollars.
Title VII of WRDA 2007 also tasked the Corps with developing, in
concert with the state of Louisiana, a comprehensive coastal management
plan ``for protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem.'' To date, the Corps has not engaged in such a process. In
the meantime the state of Louisiana has produced two successive Coastal
Master Plans, in 2012 and 2017, based upon a widely lauded scientific
and stakeholder engagement processes, which propose fundamental changes
to the management of the lower Mississippi River. Among these are
diversions of river water into the collapsing Mississippi River delta
at Ama on the west bank of the river, and Union on the east bank.
Louisiana's 2017 Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast
(CMP), based upon a science-based selection process, propose diversion
projects upriver from New Orleans at Ama and Union that could fulfill
the goals of the CMP and reduce the flood threat downriver. Ama would
divert water that would otherwise need to be carried by the Bonnet
Carre Spillway, away from the Lake Pontchartrain basin in Louisiana and
Mississippi Sound in Mississippi and Alabama. The Union Diversion would
divert water into the Pontchartrain Basin upriver from Bonnet Carre,
allowing it to pass through the swamps surrounding lakes Maurepas and
Pontchartrain, where wetlands would reduce the amount of excess
nutrients reaching Mississippi Sound and Lake Pontchartrain, reducing
harmful algal blooms.
The state of Louisiana submitted proposed Ama and Union Diversion
feasibility studies for inclusion in the Section 7001 report that
Congress will soon receive. The National Wildlife Federation urges
Congress to authorize these proposed studies, and to examine outcomes
from other ongoing studies to improve overall flood control,
navigation, and ecosystem restoration of the lower Mississippi River.
We also encourage an increased federal investment in and commitment to
the goals of the Louisiana Coastal Area program, as we work to restore
a coastal ecosystem that is facing some of the highest rates of sea
level rise and subsidence in the world.
Restoring America's Everglades
The National Wildlife Federation appreciates the committee's
continued support for efforts to restore America's Everglades. The
``River of Grass'' is an ecological treasure, supporting a vast array
of threatened and endangered plants and wildlife. It provides the
drinking water for 8 million people and is a vital source of Florida's
commercial and recreational fishing, outdoor recreation, and tourism.
Located along the southern tip of Florida, the Everglades' network of
mangroves and wetlands, along with the surrounding coral reefs and
seagrasses, function as the first line of defense against hurricanes,
storms, and flooding, reducing storm surges and absorbing floodwaters.
The best tool we have to make Florida more resilient is Everglades
restoration. Centuries of draining Florida's wetlands and altering the
flow of water have limited water management flexibility in parts of
South Florida, causing recurring sea grass die-offs and toxic algae
outbreaks that wreak havoc on Florida's economy and wildlife. Key
Everglades restoration projects aim to help capture and clean water
from Lake Okeechobee and send it south to the Everglades and Florida
Bay, where it is desperately needed. This will reduce the volume and
frequency of damaging discharges and toxic algae outbreaks in Florida's
delicate coastal estuaries.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized in WRDA
2000, laid out a roadmap to restore America's Everglades, with both the
federal government and the state responsible for 50 percent of project
costs. In recent years, the state of Florida has funded Everglades
restoration at more than $200 million a year, while federal
appropriations have significantly lagged behind. In order to maximize
the benefits of, and advance the progress made towards, restoring
America's Everglades, the federal government must invest at least $200
million in Army Corps Everglades restoration efforts each year. In
addition to robust, consistent funding for Everglades restoration to
proceed, it will be important that component projects with the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are not prevented from
advancing due to any new construction starts limitations.
Brandon Road Lock and Dam Project
The National Wildlife Federation has worked for many years on
protecting the Great Lakes and all of our nation's waters from the
ongoing threat and harm of aquatic invasive species, specifically the
invasive Asian carp. Asian carp have devastated iconic fisheries
throughout the country and now threaten the Great Lakes and their
connected inland lakes and rivers, too. Asian carp are not just a Great
Lakes problem, or a Mississippi River problem, or a Kentucky Lake
problem. They are an American problem, and it will take a united
national effort to stop them.
Specifically in the Great Lakes, invasive Asian carp will undermine
fisheries throughout the Great Lakes region--as filter feeders with no
native predators, they reproduce rapidly and consume the base of the
food chain, starving out forage, native and sport fish. Silver carp are
a safety threat to boaters and anglers, leaping out of the water when
disturbed by boat motors, and even paddles, threatening tourism-reliant
communities.
The Corps submitted a Chief's Report for the Brandon Road Lock and
Dam project in the summer of 2019. This Lock is about 50 miles south of
Chicago and represents our best opportunity to provide a long-term
structural deterrent to Asian carp. The Brandon Road plan would install
a gauntlet of smart technologies to stop invasive Asian carp while
allowing commercial navigation to continue. All the Great Lakes
governors and the Ontario and Quebec premiers have signed on to a
resolution supporting the plan. In addition, over 200 hunting, fishing,
outdoor recreation industry and conservation organizations support the
Brandon Road plan. This project is essential to help protect the
fishery, the economy and quality of life in the Great Lakes region.
4. Congress Should Ensure that the Corps Effectively Analyzes and
Mitigates for the Adverse Impacts of Corps Projects on Fish and
Wildlife
For decades, Congress has required mitigation for adverse impacts
to fish and wildlife caused by Corps water resources projects. Congress
established detailed planning requirements to ensure effective
mitigation in WRDA 2007, where it also clearly stated that the
mitigation requirements must be met whenever the Corps selects a
project alternative in ``any report.'' \34\ The Act's legislative
history reiterates that the ``increased mitigation requirements apply
to all new studies and any other project that must be reevaluated for
any reason.'' \35\ Rather than follow these clear directives, the Corps
has explicitly limited its compliance with the WRDA 2007 mitigation
requirements to reports submitted to Congress for authorization.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(1) (``the Secretary shall not submit any
proposal for the authorization of any water resources project to
Congress in any report, and shall not select a project alternative in
any report, unless such report contains'' the detailed mitigation plan
required by WRDA 2007) (emphasis added).
\35\ Congressional Record Senate, S11981 September 24, 2007
(Consideration of Water Resources Development Act of 2007--Conference
Report, Senator Barbara Boxer Environment and Public Works Committee
Chair).
\36\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Implementation Guidance for
Section 2036 (a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA
07)--Mitigation for Fish and Wildlife and Wetlands Losses (August 31,
2009). The Corps' interpretation violates the most fundamental
principles of statutory construction by: (1) ignoring an entirely
independent clause in the statute (``and shall not select a project
alternative in any report''); and (2) failing to give meaning to the
adjective ``any'' that qualifies the term ``report'' in that
independent clause. See, e.g., TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31
(2001); U. S. v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S. 30, 36 (1992); Perrin v.
United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979); United States v. Manasche, 348
U.S. 528, 538-539 (1955).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist the Corps in properly evaluating fish and wildlife
impacts and needed mitigation, the Corps is also required to consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on fish and wildlife impacts
from individual Corps projects and on opportunities for mitigating any
such impacts. State fish and wildlife agencies are also encouraged to
consult with the Corps on project-specific impacts and mitigation
opportunities. The Corps is required to give ``full consideration'' to
these expert recommendations.
Regrettably, the Corps often fails to adhere to these important
requirements, leading to projects and long-term project operations that
cause profound harm to the nation's fish and wildlife. For example,
both of these requirements were ignored during the Corps' recent update
to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) water control manual with
devastating consequences.
For decades the Corps' operation of the ACF system has starved
Florida's vitally important Apalachicola River and Bay of essential
freshwater flows. The impacts have been so devastating that the state
of Florida advised Congress that ``the ecosystem and, indeed, the very
way of life for generations of Floridians will be devastated'' if flow
patterns that mimic the historic flow regime are not restored for the
Apalachicola River.\37\ However, instead of improving conditions in the
Apalachicola River and Bay, the Corps' new water control manual will
make the already dire conditions even worse by holding significantly
more water back for upstream water supply, initiating drought
restrictions earlier and more frequently, and severely restricting
flows to the Apalachicola River more often and for longer periods of
time.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Testimony of Jonathan P. Steverson, Executive Director of the
Northwest Florida Water Management District, ``Effects of Water Flows
on Apalachicola Bay: Short and Long Term Perspectives'', United States
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Field Hearing,
August 13, 2013 at 4.
\38\ The excessive damage that would be caused by the new water
control manual has forced the state of Alabama and conservation
organizations, including the National Wildlife Federation, to challenge
the manual in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the problems with the new ACF water control manual could
have been avoided had the Corps addressed the important recommendations
made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the project's Final Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. These recommendations included
utilizing a different approach for analyzing impacts and for developing
alternatives that would reduce the adverse environmental and wildlife
impacts without jeopardizing other authorized purposes.
In this update, the Corps also refused to adopt a mitigation plan
for ``substantially adverse'' damage to fish and aquatic resources in
the Chattahoochee River. The Corps argued that it is not required to
mitigate for this significant harm because the new water control manual
does not have to be submitted to Congress for approval.
To address these problems, Congress should: (1) clarify the types
of project studies that trigger the civil works mitigation requirements
to ensure application of these requirements as Congress unquestionably
intended; and (2) direct the Corps to evaluate and develop mitigation
for fish and wildlife resources in a manner that is consistent with
recommendations developed by federal and state fish and wildlife
experts pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act that derive
from the special expertise of these experts (e.g., methods and metrics
for evaluating fish and wildlife impacts and needed mitigation).
5. Congress Should Modernize the Corps' Benefit-Cost Analysis Process
to Better Account for Project Costs and Benefits, Including by
Accounting for Ecosystem Services
The Corps' benefit-cost analysis process is biased towards the
approval of costly, large-scale structural projects even when less
costly, natural infrastructure or nature-based solutions are available.
This bias can lead to the construction of projects that significantly
and unnecessarily undermine resilience.
Among many other problems, Corps cost analyses do not account for
costs associated with detailed technical design specifications; full
life-cycle costs; or costs associated with delays due to lack of
funding and/or sub-optimal funding streams. As a result, Corps cost
estimates can dramatically understate the actual costs to both
taxpayers and non-federal sponsors to construct a project. Importantly,
Corps cost analyses also fail to account for the costs of lost
ecosystem services.

Examples of Projects With Grossly Inaccurate Original Cost Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Estimate 2010 Estimate Percentage
Project (millions) (millions) Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Hurricane Protection...................... $85 $738 768%
Sacramento Flood Protection......................... $57 $270 to $370 374% to 549%
Rio de Flag River................................... $24 $85 254%
Monongahela Locks & Dam............................. $556 $1,700 206%
Olmstead Lock & Dam................................. $775 $2,124 174%
Folsom Dam Flood Gates.............................. $215 $450 to $650 109% to 202%
McAlpine Locks & Dam................................ $220 $427 94%
Marmet Lock......................................... $223 $406 82%
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration................. $1,540 $1,970 28%
Oregon Inlet Jetty (annual costs)................... $4.5 $5.5 22%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 2013 GAO report found that at least two-thirds of the 87 Corps
flood control projects budgeted for construction between FY2004 and
FY2012 experienced cost increases. One project cost $10 million more
than the authorized estimate because the construction site could not be
accessed without carrying out major rehabilitation of a tunnel access
point. The cost of a pumping plant required by a second project
increased from the original estimate of $800,000 to $10.7 million due
to design changes required to handle the actual site conditions.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Government Accountability Office, Army Corps of Engineers,
Cost Increases in Flood Control Projects and Improving Communication
with Nonfederal Sponsors, GAO-14-35 (December 2013) at 11, 14, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps' benefit analyses are equally problematic. They fail to
account for benefits resulting from increases in ecosystem services;
often lack justifications for claimed benefits; and include benefits
that would be derived from activities that are contrary to law, policy,
and sound resource management. For example, Corps benefit analyses may
include: (1) agriculture and development benefits created by draining
wetlands; (2) development benefits resulting from new or intensified
use of floodplains or wetlands, including future induced development;
(3) flood damage reduction benefits from new or intensified use of
lands subject to flood easements or permanent conservation easements;
and (4) benefits from draining wetlands on federally owned lands.
Corps benefit-cost analyses are also plagued by invalid
assumptions, inaccurate data, and basic math errors. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that a number of major Corps studies
``understated costs and overstated benefits, and therefore did not
provide a reasonable basis for decision-making'' because they ``were
fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid
assumptions and outdated data.'' \40\ GAO also found that these
problems were pervasive at the Corps, concluding that ``the Corps'
track record for providing reliable information that can be used by
decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.'' \41\ In one case, the
Department of the Army Inspector General found that the Corps had
deliberately and intentionally manipulated data to achieve a positive
benefit-cost ratio that would support large scale construction of
longer locks on the Upper Mississippi River.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Government Accountability Office (GAO-06-529T), Corps of
Engineers, Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes
for the Civil Works Program, March 2006.
\41\ Id.
\42\ U.S. Department of the Army Inspector General, Report of
Investigation, Case 00-019, 2000, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The many problems with Corps benefit-cost analyses may result in
the approval of projects whose actual costs and benefits bear little to
no relation to the benefit-cost ratio used to obtain congressional
approval. To help the Corps accurately account for project costs and
benefits, Congress should modernize the criteria used to assess costs
and benefits--and level the playing field for natural infrastructure--
including by requiring the Corps to account for increased ecosystem
services as a project benefit and lost ecosystem services as a project
cost.
6. Congress Should Increase the Corps' Capacity to Improve the
Resilience of Water Resources Infrastructure, Including By Taking Full
Advantage of Existing Authorities
Many existing programs and projects can be modernized to increase
resilience while still satisfying authorized project purposes. Changes
can be initiated through supplemental environmental impact statements,
general or limited reevaluation studies, or through congressional
adoption of a ``study resolution'' that allows the Corps to examine a
particular water resources problem in a specific area that has already
been investigated.
Water control manuals, operating plans, and operations and
maintenance activities can readily be reevaluated through the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process--and many of these
activities likely require a supplemental review as a matter of law. At
a minimum, these types of studies should be used to ensure that Corps
projects do not inadvertently increase flood risks, divert flood waters
onto other communities, or create ecosystem-wide harm to vital natural
systems.
For example, the NEPA process should be used to evaluate
alternatives to the Corps' use of river training structures to reduce
dredging costs in the middle Mississippi River to reduce this project's
inadvertent impacts. The Corps' extensive use of river training
structures to maintain navigation in the middle Mississippi has
increased flood heights by 6 to 15 feet in this portion of the river
and destroyed vital fish and wildlife habitat.\43\ Importantly,
navigation can be readily maintained even if many of these structures
would modified or removed to reduce flood risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The middle Mississippi River is the 195-mile segment between
the confluence of the Missouri River (located north of St. Louis, MO)
and the confluence of the Ohio River (located near Cairo, IL). The
middle Mississippi is the first section of free-flowing River below the
River's lock and dam navigation system. The middle Mississippi, like
the rest of the River, has been severely degraded by the Corps'
approach to maintaining navigation on the river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updating out-of-date water control manuals can improve the health
of the environment and reduce flood risks. Many water control manuals
have not been updated in decades and as a result, they cannot account
for current needs or environmental conditions, including changes in
rainfall, flood levels, snowmelt patterns, and land use patterns.
Outdated plans also fail to use modern scientific tools or state-of-
the-art management approaches that can both ensure effective operation
of federal projects and protect the environment. The impacts can be
devastating.
Outdated operating procedures and flawed planning aggravated
already horrific flooding in Houston during Hurricane Harvey. During
Harvey, the Corps of Engineers released at least 13,000 cubic feet of
water per second from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs to reduce the
risks of overtopping and to protect homes upstream.\44\ But those same
releases caused extensive flooding downstream in Buffalo Bayou,
flooding some 4,000 homes that would otherwise have remained dry
despite Harvey's onslaught.\45\ More than 5,000 of the 14,000 homes
located inside the reservoirs also flooded. The in-reservoir homes were
built on some 8,000 acres of land that the Corps opted not to buy when
the reservoirs were constructed in the 1940s, even though the Corps
knew the land would flood during large flood events. At least 4,000
homes were built inside the reservoirs since Tropical Storm Allison
devastated large areas of Houston in 2001.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Preliminary U.S. Geological Survey data suggests that the
actual releases were much higher than what was supposed to be a maximum
release of 13,000 cubic feet per second because the gages measuring the
releases were not working properly (https://af.reuters.com/article/
africaTech/idAFL2N1LQ0IL).
\45\ KHOU.com, Houston Texas, Buffalo Bayou to remain at record
level; Barker, Addicks reservoirs have peaked (September 1, 2017)
(http://www.khou.com/weather/hurricanes/hurricane-harvey/controlled-
release-of-barker-addicks-reservoirs-to-impact-thousands/468348109).
\46\ Al Shaw, Lisa Song, Kiah Collier, Neena Satija, How Harvey
Hurt Houston, in 10 Maps, ProPublica (January 3, 2018) (https://
projects.propublica.org/graphics/harvey-maps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updating the management plans for these reservoirs and quickly
completing critical structural upgrades would help protect Houstonians
during future flood events.\47\ These reservoirs have been classified
as two of the six most dangerous flood control dams in the United
States for many years. Storage capacity could be restored by removing
silt and sediment that have accumulated over the last 60-plus years of
operation, and public safety would be improved by upgrading gages and
other tools that track the quantity of water released from the
reservoirs and by ensuring that the public is fully aware of the
potential for flood risks from both typical and emergency reservoir
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ A 2009 master plan limits releases from the reservoirs to
2,000 cubic feet per second. http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Portals/26/
docs/2009%20Addicks%20and%20Barker%20MP.pdf at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of improving reservoir management and safety is not
limited to Houston. The Corps operates 707 dams that it owns across the
country, operates 75 hydropower facilities, and manages flood control
operations at 134 dams constructed or operated by other federal,
nonfederal, or private agencies. Many of these dams have operating
plans that date back 50 years, including many of central California's
35 federal flood control dams where outdated plans are damaging rivers
and wildlife and threatening community safety.
Updating operations and maintenance plans can also produce
significant improvements to river health and resilience. For example,
the vast majority of operations and maintenance plans for the
Mississippi River navigation system are more than 40 years old.\48\ As
a result, the Corps continues to carry out the same operation and
maintenance activities that have devastated the ecological health of
the Mississippi River and the species that rely on it. These outdated
operations and maintenance activities are destroying critical
backwater, side channel, wetlands, and instream habitats; altering
water depth; destroying bathymetric diversity; causing nonnative
species to proliferate; and severely impacting native species.\49\
Modern approaches exist for operating this system that would both
maintain a vibrant navigation system and improve the health of the
river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ As a result of extensive pressure, the Corps recently
reassessed some, but not all, of its management activities for a
segment of that system known as the Middle Mississippi River.
\49\ U.S. Geological Survey, Ecological Status and Trends of the
Upper Mississippi River System 1998: A Report of the Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program (April 1999); Johnson, B. L., and K. H. Hagerty,
editors. 2008. U.S. Geological Survey, Status and Trends of Selected
Resources of the Upper Mississippi River System, December 2008,
Technical Report LTRMP 2008-T002 (Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences
Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where multiple studies are authorized or required for a river or
coastal system, those studies could be used to inform a comprehensive
review of potential improvements to the system. For example, multiple
planning process are underway, should be initiated through new
environmental reviews, or are authorized for the Mississippi River,
including:

(a) Studies examining whether and how the Corps should dispose
(i.e., transfer ownership to a non-federal interest/recommend removal)
of the Upper St. Anthony Falls, Lower St. Anthony Falls and Lock and
Dam 1--these studies are underway.
(b) Updates to the water control manuals, and required
environmental impact statements, for the Upper Mississippi River lock
and dam system--these studies should be initiated through a new
environmental review with a goal of establishing a more natural
hydrologic regime for the River that includes regular periods of lower
flows to allow regeneration of wetlands and wildlife habitat.
(c) A new update to the Corps' navigation maintenance actions for
the middle Mississippi River between St. Louis, MO and Cairo, IL--this
study should be initiated through a new environmental review with a
goal of significantly reducing flood height increases caused by
excessive construction of river training structures designed to reduce
navigation dredging costs.
(d) An assessment of alternative management regimes for the Old
River Control Structure, which controls the amount of water diverted
from the Mississippi River to the Atchafalaya Basin--this study was
authorized in WRDA 2018.
(e) A study examining whether to increase the height of
significant portions of the Mississippi Rivers & Tributaries Project
mainline levee system--this study is underway.
(f) Lower Mississippi River Restoration feasibility studies that
will look at restoration projects for eight separate reaches--these
studies were authorized in WRDA 2018.
(g) Assessment of projects to restore Louisiana's coastal
wetlands, including through Mississippi River sediment diversions--
these studies are underway.

These studies could--and should--be used to inform a comprehensive
plan for increasing the resilience of the Mississippi River and its
extensive water resources infrastructure. This could be achieved by
evaluating and adopting alternatives that protect and restore the
natural functions of the Mississippi River, as required by the National
Water Resources Planning Policy. This policy, which was established in
WRDA 2007, requires that ``all water resources projects'' are to
protect the environment by ``protecting and restoring the functions of
natural systems and mitigating any unavoidable damage to natural
systems.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 42 U.S.C 1962-3 (established by 2031(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007, and immediately applicable to all
water resources projects).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should increase the Corps' capacity to improve the
resilience of the nation's water resources infrastructure by
establishing a Directorate of Ecological Services within the Office of
the Chief of Engineers tasked with ensuring that the Corps takes full
advantage of existing programs, authorities, and operations to use
natural systems to protect communities from floods, minimize
expenditures for emergency response and rebuilding, improve wildlife
habitat, and strengthen the outdoor-based economy. This Directorate
should have significant budgeting authority.
Conclusion
The National Wildlife Federation calls on the committee and
Congress to enact the common sense reforms outlined in this testimony
that would promote the resilience of the nation's waters and water
resources infrastructure. We also respectfully ask the committee to
continue to advance critical ecosystem restoration projects, defend the
integrity of the nation's vitally important environmental laws, and
oversee the Corps compliance with the letter and spirit of these laws
when planning, constructing, and operating projects.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Samet. Thank you.
Yes, Ms. Ufner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ufner. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman
DeFazio, Ranking Member Westerman and members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to testify before you today on the
potential next steps for the Water Resources Development Act
that may be considered by Congress next year.
My name is Julie Ufner. I am president of the National
Waterways Conference, which represents a full spectrum of water
infrastructure stakeholders, many of whom are non-Federal
sponsors of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works projects
and are responsible for significant financial commitments for
construction and maintenance of those projects.
We appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing,
recognizing the critical importance of resilient infrastructure
so that these investments can deliver their benefits as
intended. As we look to how to accomplish this goal, we would
respectfully suggest that any solutions included in WRDA must
be built upon the experiences of those on the front lines, on
the ground, so to speak, including flood control districts,
levee boards, emergency managers and port operators, to name a
few.
As the subcommittee works to understand how to make
infrastructure more resilient, a common understanding of the
term ``resilient'' ought to be a first step in the process.
Resilience is not a rigid, monolithic set of standards that can
be easily applied to every situation in every place. It is not
a one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, resiliency is a broad
concept. It can be achieved by choosing among an array of
viable solutions developed through careful consideration of
feasible alternatives that have been rigorously and
scientifically examined. The ultimate goal is to protect local
communities and infrastructure.
As the committee knows, the Corps is required to go through
an extremely extensive assessment in its planning process. As
described in more detail in our written testimony, it can be
difficult to quantify multiple project benefits, including
establishing the value of nature-based alternatives in the
analysis. You have heard other witnesses express similar
concerns.
As described in our written testimony, NWC has expressed
serious concerns about the attempt to update the P&G as
directed by WRDA 2007. Given that the resulting work products
from the ill-fated effort are fundamentally flawed, we would
recommend a study by the National Academy of Sciences to
provide better tools to quantify the multiple benefits that can
be reaped.
It is important to remember that Civil Works projects are
developed to address a local problem. The planning process is
designed to analyze and formulate solutions to that problem.
Any suggestion to mandate a particular course of action upfront
ought to be rejected out of hand. Moreover, any attempt to
disregard the priorities of the non-Federal sponsor and the
communities that they represent must not be supported.
Two recent studies, the Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk
Management Study and the Yolo Bypass detailed in my testimony,
provide examples on how to better address multiple purpose
benefits. This includes better quantification and demonstration
of all benefits accruing from these projects and better
utilizing non-Federal sponsor resources, capabilities and
knowledge. We can likewise reap multiple benefits in ongoing
maintenance activities.
The Little River drainage system in southeast Missouri has
taken a proactive approach to long-term project management by
planting native and warm season grasses in its drainage
infrastructure, enhancing environmental benefits as part of its
flood control project.
In conclusion, it must be remembered that we are in a
resource-constrained environment. Before good ideas are
required, we must be sure that these approaches work, and that
the Federal taxpayer and the non-Federal sponsor can afford to
bear the cost. However we define the term ``resiliency,'' we
need to define it together, to make sure that it is workable
and viable on the ground. We look forward to doing this with
you in the next WRDA bill.
Thank you for your time.
[Ms. Ufner's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Julie A. Ufner, President, National Waterways
Conference
Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the
``Concepts for the Next Water Resources Development Act: Promoting
Resiliency of our Nation's Water Resources Infrastructure.''
My name is Julie Ufner. I am President of the National Waterways
Conference, Inc. (NWC or Conference). Prior to coming to the
Conference, I served as the Associate Legislative Director for
Environment, Energy and Land Use at the National Association of
Counties (NACo) for the past 17 years. NWC would like to thank both
Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman for their
leadership, along with this subcommittee for its long tradition of
cooperation and collaboration in addressing the nation's critical water
resources needs. On behalf of NWC, we are pleased to weigh in on the
importance of a robust water resources infrastructure for our nation
and to address potential next steps for a Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) that may be considered by Congress in 2020.
About NWC
Established in 1960, NWC is the only national organization to
advocate in favor of national policy and laws that recognize the vital
importance of America's water resources infrastructure to our nation's
well-being and quality of life. Supporting a sound balance between
economic and human needs and environmental and ecological
considerations, our mission is to effect common sense policies and
programs, recognizing the public value of our nation's water resources
and their contribution to public safety, a competitive economy,
national security, environmental quality and energy conservation.
Conference membership is comprised of the full spectrum of water
resources stakeholders, including flood control associations, levee
boards, waterways shippers and carriers, industry and regional
associations, port authorities, shipyards, dredging contractors,
regional water supply districts, hydropower producers, engineering
consultants and state and local governments. Many of our members are
non-federal sponsors of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps)
civil works projects, responsible for significant financial commitments
for the construction and maintenance of these projects. They work
diligently and collaboratively with our federal partners to ensure the
nation can reap the multiple benefits provided by these investments. To
that end, our membership is keenly interested in the enactment of
comprehensive water resources legislation and we look forward to
working with the Committee as it moves forward in this process.
Water resources infrastructure helps keep communities safe and
strengthens national and local economies.
Across the country, our water resources infrastructure provides
life-saving flood control, needed water supplies, valuable shore
protection, water-based recreation, environmental restoration and
hydropower production, all of which are essential to our economic well-
being. Moreover, waterways transportation is the safest, most energy-
efficient and environmentally sound mode of transportation.
We appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing, recognizing
the critical importance of a ``resilient'' infrastructure, so that
these investments can deliver their benefits as intended. As Congress
and stakeholders grapple with how to accomplish this goal, in view of
the lessons learned, and indeed that we continue to learn, from recent
devastating floods, we would respectfully suggest that any solutions
included in WRDA must be built upon the experiences of those on the
front lines, on the ground, including flood control districts, levee
boards, emergency managers, port operators, to name a few. A common
understanding of ``resilience'' ought to be a first step in this
discussion. In that way, local communities, stakeholders, non-federal
sponsors and federal leaders will be better poised to address local
infrastructure needs. We know from experience that where infrastructure
is in place, communities tend to experience a lesser degree of physical
harm and economic damage. Our shared goal ought to be that ensuring
appropriate investments are made up front to prevent, or at least
lessen, the need for disaster relief after the fact. Not only will such
an approach save taxpayer money, it will also mitigate the difficult
decisions later on how to address devastation, and whether and where to
rebuild. Stated another way, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. The cycle we are in--failing to invest adequately at the front
end only to require significant disaster relief funding later--is
simply unsustainable.
A good example of this approach can be gleaned from the Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T) project that was authorized in 1928 after
the devastating floods in 1927 to provide a comprehensive approach to
flood control and ensure an effective navigation channel. The project's
four major features include levees and floodwalls; channel improvement
and stabilization; tributary basin improvements and a system of
floodways, that work together to provide flood control and navigation
and foster environmental protection and enhancement. To date, the MR&T
has prevented more than $1.27 trillion in flood damages since 1928, $80
for every dollar invested. In considering the value of this investment,
it's essential to remember what is being protected by this critical
infrastructure--homes, schools, fire and police stations, hospitals,
power plants, oil refineries, highways, rail, ports, and cropland.
As the nation considers how to make its infrastructure more
resilient, some context and background are helpful. The Corps is
responsible for the development, maintenance and oversight of much of
the nation's water resources infrastructure through its Civil Works
program. This includes flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem
restoration, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and environmental
stewardship, as well as providing emergency response services. As part
of the project development process, the Corps includes environmental
decision-making primarily in the planning phase. The planning program
provides a structured approach to the formulation of projects that is
responsive to local, state and national needs, premised upon the
project's contribution to national economic development while
protecting the environment. In addition to the complex, and often
lengthy internal review process, Corps' studies are also subject to
extensive external reviews, including under the National Environmental
Protection Act, at the first stage of the process.
The concept of resilience has taken on greater significance in the
Corps' planning program. It frames our aspirations for managing our
water resources. It allows communities to enhance the quality of lives
of our families and the viability of our businesses and industries. Key
to this concept--resilience is not a rigid, monolithic set of standards
that can be easily applied to every situation and every place. Rather,
it can be achieved by choosing among an array of viable solutions
developed through careful consideration of practicable alternatives.
The feasibility report produced at the end of the planning process is
the investment prospectus for a tailored project that will meet the
needs--environmental, financial and safety--of the community that
participates in the feasibility study. Congress maintains the power to
authorize the ultimate investment and make a commitment to its
implementation.
There has been an increased call for the use of nature-based and
natural infrastructure alternatives to be included in the planning
process. To be sure, the process should include consideration of a full
array of viable solutions. Federal investment decisions are grounded
upon the net economic benefits to the nation, using a cost-benefit
analysis, as set forth in the 1983 Principles and Guidelines (P&G)
which governs project planning and development. NWC has been a vocal
critic of the attempted update to the P&G as directed in WRDA 2007,
resulting in the Principles and Requirements and Implementing
Guidelines, as those products are undisciplined, and lack any degree of
consistency and predictability needed for the development of proposals
to guide federal investment decisions. A key area of concern is the
inability to quantify multiple project benefits, including establishing
the value of nature-based alternatives in that analysis.
In order to achieve multiple benefits from the civil works
portfolio, we would recommend a rigorous, disciplined, scientific-based
examination of this issue. Going forward, achieving water resources
resilience will demand that our planners adopt new technical approaches
to forecast water resources needs and problems and identify viable
alternatives. In addition to nature-based solutions, the planning
process ought to consider water resources as an integrated system,
where multiple purposes can be addressed and multiple benefits
achieved. To get there, we must engage in a productive discussion of
how the basic objectives of economics, environmental protection,
regional development and social well-being can address resilience
concerns, and how that analysis can be grounded in a disciplined,
thoughtful, predictable process. WRDA is, of course, not the only
platform for this discussion. We are encouraged by work going on at the
Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center to develop a method for
evaluating and quantifying benefits beyond the scope of the traditional
benefit cost ratio used in project formation.
We would like to offer a few examples to illustrate the discussion
above.
The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) has been working
to obtain authority to widen the Yolo Bypass, which was originally
built in 1917. The Yolo Bypass was constructed as a single-purpose
federal flood facility which has evolved into a multipurpose system
that deals with issues such as flood control, water supply, ecosystem
restoration, drainage and agricultural enhancements. Since
construction, the region has had eight events larger than the system
was designed to handle. The Corps recently conducted a feasibility
study on the widening project but was unable to justify a federal
interest based on the current cost-benefit analysis, which only looks
at flood protection, rather than the multipurpose benefits of a
systemwide approach.
The Yolo Bypass proposal--a comprehensive, system-wide, multi-
purpose approach designed to protect a sizable population at risk--at
its core embodies the concept of resiliency. Moreover, this approach is
integral to the Corps' Revolutionize civil works initiative. A review
of the lessons learned throughout the study process offers some
suggestions for improvement, including better quantification and
demonstration of all benefits accruing from these projects; improved
quantification of multi-purpose benefits as well as improved
quantification of urban flood protection benefits, taking into
consideration such things as benefits to economically distressed areas;
and better utilizing non-federal sponsors' resources, capabilities, and
knowledge. Building upon provisions in the most recent WRDAs, non-
federal partners' technical, project management and other capabilities
must be better recognized and utilized.
The recently issued Chief's Report on the Norfolk Coastal Storm
Risk Management Study offers another example of achieving multiple
benefits and working collaboratively with the local community. The
study is a comprehensive investigation of flood risk management
problems and solutions in the City of Norfolk which came about as a
result of findings from a larger effort, the North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Study, which was authorized by Congress after Hurricane
Sandy in October 2012, to identify and address flood risks of
vulnerable coastal populations in that region. The Chief's Report
recommends $1.4 billion in investments in the City of Norfolk,
providing structural, nonstructural, and natural and nature-based
solutions to reduce storm damages in the event of coastal storms, while
accounting for sea level change.
The Corps partnered with the city to assess not only how to reduce
coastal storm risk, but also to build resiliency by implementing
strategic approaches that address frequent tidal flooding risk, major
storms and the impact on residents and economic activity. A few key
takeaways from the process can instruct future planning efforts. First,
quantifying green infrastructure was difficult, as discussed
previously; further research is needed to justify the inclusion of some
options in a federal project. In response to this challenge, the city
intends to move forward on community resilience efforts on a local
scale, addressing needs beyond the scope of the Corps study. For
instance, in addition to the infrastructure improvements proposed in
the study, the city plans to use nonstructural measures such as
increased freeboard requirements for new structures and floodproofing.
Equally important is the recognition that coastal resilience planning
and preparedness do not end with the Chief's Report, but must continue
to evolve, in a proactive rather than reactive approach.
It's important to note that investments in infrastructure include
not only new construction, but also include both maintenance and
recapitalization of existing infrastructure. Starting with a blank
slate to develop a solution to a water resources problem better lends
itself to incorporate many features into the project. We shouldn't,
however, overlook opportunities to incorporate environmental benefits
into ongoing maintenance opportunities.
By way of example, The Little River Drainage District (LRDD) in
Southeast Missouri has taken a proactive approach to long-term project
management by partnering with the Missouri Department of Conservation
(MDC) to maximize the environmental benefits of projects by planting
native and warm season grasses that provide increased wildlife habitat,
superior erosion control (added resiliency), and cost effective/
environmentally-friendly yearly maintenance by utilizing fire rather
than mechanical mowing. Within this partnership between LRDD and MDC,
the project purpose, flood control and drainage, will continue to be
paramount to the overall mission of the partnership. Nonetheless, the
partnership has yielded a win-win situation, by enhancing the
resiliency of flood control and drainage projects along with providing
a very important secondary benefit of environmental enhancements to
fully maximize the benefits of the project footprint.
The partnership's success hasn't been without challenges though.
There is concern that under traditional USACE review processes, the
focus is on mitigation and/or preservation rather than on enhancing the
multiple benefits to be accrued by the overall project footprint. These
processes could be revised to allow inclusion of additional benefits as
part of routine and ongoing maintenance, and not treating the process
to add benefits as a new project.
Since the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, there
has been a heightened focus on the beneficial use of dredged material,
recognizing the mutual benefits that can be accrued between navigation
and ecosystem restoration. In fiscal year 2019, the USACE New Orleans
District worked to maintain the authorized channel dimensions on the
Mississippi River Ship Channel during months-long high water, yielding
87 million cubic yards (mcy), well above the 51 mcy average. The
District beneficially used 25.6 mcy of dredged sediment creating
approximately 2,048 acres of wetlands below Venice, Louisiana, in the
environmentally sensitive bird's foot delta. These sediment recycling
efforts have beneficially utilized over 132 mcy of materials to create
or restore 9,598 acres. This is equal to approximately 15 square miles
of marsh in that area since 2009, which represents an equivalent of
more than 13 million dump trucks. This result was achieved due to the
adaptive approach to sediment management supported by the collaborative
efforts of the Corps and its federal partners (U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife), along with the industry stakeholders on the ground
(including the Big River Coalition, dredging contractors, and local
river pilots).
Conclusion
Throughout the testimony, we highlighted projects where our non-
federal partners have successfully collaborated with the Corps to
achieve multiple benefits and increase resiliency from water resources
projects, and also pointed out some challenges to accruing those
benefits. The Corps brings needed technical expertise to the table, and
in return, our members can offer valuable feedback on strategies and
policies that can work on the ground. We encourage the Corps to
continue utilizing non-federal sponsors' resources, capabilities, and
knowledge, as we tackle new challenges to support the resiliency of
civil works projects.
We live in a world with resource and data constraints. However we
define the term ``resilience,'' we'd do well to observe the need for
fiscal soundness. That is, the costs of policy, programs and projects
should be less than the comparative budgetary savings they achieve. It
must be demonstrated, as part of the investment decision process, that
over the long term, these investments will serve as the optimal
approaches to lessen future weather-related damages.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the
foundations for a Water Resources Development Act. We look forward to
working with the subcommittee as it is moves forward with developing
this important legislation.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Ufner.
Thank you, all our witnesses.
And we will now begin questions for you from the Members.
And we will use the timer to allow 5 minutes for the questions
from each Member. If there are additional questions, we might
have a second round as necessary.
So I will begin by asking Mr. Galloway, Mr. Pineda, Ms.
Samet, what are the steps the Corps can take now under existing
authority to factor resiliency in their projects and what are
the gaps to those authorities?
General Galloway. Madam Chairwoman, the Corps of Engineers
is trying diligently to work with resilience and to work with
local communities. What can they do to improve that? It's reach
out, again, as has just been said, to the local authorities,
the people that are on the ground, who know what are the
challenges they face. So resilience requires cooperation from
top to bottom and everybody having a seat at the table. That
becomes terribly important.
It also requires us to have seats at the table for all the
Federal agencies, so that when one agency has a solution, it
can be brought into the solutions used by the Corps.
Mrs. Napolitano. In other words, that they talk to each
other.
General Galloway. Yes. It is difficult to do that, and we
need that ability to partner, to be readily available and not a
labor of great, I guess, problem to get through to any of these
to have any waivers. It has got--the 21st century has to be
fast moving; it has to have everybody at the table, and it has
to deal with the challenges that the locals see as well as the
Federal.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Pineda. Your mic, pull up your mic to your----
Mr. Pineda. I will pull it closer. OK, thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is it.
Mr. Pineda. The first one is through work with the State of
Louisiana and the levee districts in New Orleans, the Corps, in
rebuilding the levees of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina,
through the Hurricane Storm Damage and Risk Reduction System,
designed resiliency into the 100-year design that Congress
authorized. So we knew that was not really the ideal standard
to rebuild the levees to, it should be built to a much higher
level of protection. But the Corps incorporated levee
overtopping into the design based upon input from the State and
local jurisdictions. And on the dry side of the levee, the side
that we don't want the water to go over, the Corps, working
with Louisiana State University, designed a high-performance
turf reinforced mat, essentially a super grass that could
withstand erosion from levee overtopping.
Also, in California, so that is an example of working with
the locals to come up with a resilience method. Also in
California, looking at the Yolo Bypass, which is a major
overflow for the Sacramento River, in working with the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, the California Central
Valley Flood Protection Board, and my agency, the Department of
Water Resources, using State funds and local funds, we are
setting back multiple miles of levees in the Yolo Bypass.
Essentially, this is not a Corps process. It did not pan
out with the benefit to cost ratio. But with strong local,
State and local participation, we did the engineering,
essentially using the Dutch concept, room for rivers. So we are
moving more water from the Sacramento River to the overflow
bypass and making the bypass have a greater capacity.
Also, after Hurricane Katrina, we have a lot of levees in
California. And we responded to the increased threat to our
urban areas that are along the Sacramento River and San Joaquin
Rivers and State Senator Machado passed a bill, we call Senate
bill 5, that established a 200-year level of protection
standard for urban levees. So we have been working since that
time to come up with the funds for design and construction.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Pineda, thank you very much. You have
extensive records and I would like to hear them. But I would
like to go on to Ms. Samet. Thank you.
Ms. Samet. Thank you. Yes, I would highlight that Congress
has directed the Corps on multiple occasions to consider
nonstructural and natural approaches to addressing water
resources problems which, as we have testified, we believe will
strongly increase resiliency. They also have longstanding laws
that say protect the environment as appropriate, right? Protect
the environment and restore the environment, in numerous laws.
They have the ability to reevaluate multiple projects
through the environmental review process and through other
processes. So I think that nothing actually stands in the
Corps' way to doing better work with respect to natural
infrastructure. But they clearly need more of a push and more
guidance, and I think also, clearly, more capacity to be able
to look across their business lines to see the best use that
they can make of natural infrastructure and making sure that
they are not damaging it inadvertently or creating inadvertent
problems.
So that is why we have proposed an ecological services
directorate and other reforms that would help drive the Corps
to create the incentives to drive the Corps to do a better job.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano. And again,
thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Many of you
have testified in support of a strong preference or even a
requirement that nature-based features be employed as solutions
to address resiliency challenges. And I am supportive of
looking beyond brute force and traditional gray infrastructure
to increase the use of natural and green infrastructure
designs.
I do not remember who used the phrase, but it is one that I
have often used that we need to design with nature instead of
against nature. And I am an engineer. So that is coming from
more the brute force, gray infrastructure type background.
But Ms. Ufner, what are some of the challenges that we face
with the Corps when evaluating nature-based alternatives?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question. As you know, we
live in a resource-constrained environment. And so it is really
important for us as non-Federal sponsors to work closely with
the Corps to meet the goals of our local communities, for
example, to address flooding concerns.
So the planning process is intended to address a lot of
these concerns and hopefully they're met within the planning
process. When looking at green infrastructure or natural
infrastructure specifically, right now there is not a strong
mechanism within the planning process to really quantify that.
And that can be somewhat of a challenge.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, our communities and our
non-Federal partners need to come together with the Corps and
better discuss these challenges. And we would recommend that
the Army Corps of Engineers utilize the non-Federal sponsors
more to meet these challenges. They have a lot of knowledge on
the ground that would be very valuable to the Corps.
Mr. Westerman. OK, several of you used examples and talked
about types of natural infrastructure and how you can obtain
resiliency with it. And, you know, in hindsight, looking back
at the massive levee systems that we have in our country, we
could probably be critical and say that we should have done a
better job of making those flood plains wider and not putting
the levees so close to the rivers. But if you look back
historically, some of these flood plains were miles and tens of
miles off of the river channel when the flooding happened.
So if we were to try to widen some of the levees and widen
the distance off of the river, is there enough research to know
the sweet spot, where to put the levees, and can we tie those
levees into existing levees? Because now you have got
development up close to the levees and it could be very
expensive to move some of the levees.
But, you know, exactly how do you do that? And I will ask
the engineers on the panel. How would you suggest we do that?
Mr. Gritzo. Thank you very much for your question. As one
engineer to another, and to the others, these kinds of design
approaches we believe can be effective if well designed for the
application. However, we have to recognize that when
implemented by U.S. businesses, they are giving up valuable
real estate for the space. That will be a challenge. What will
mitigate those challenges is having some good design standards,
as available in our publicly available data sheets or other
standards, to guide them to how to implement these kinds of
measures in their businesses. Because for a business, the
worst-case scenario is to make an investment, sacrifice their
real estate and hope something is going to work and have it not
be effective, and their business suffer a flood loss anyway.
We believe with good standards that apply to a wide variety
of scenarios, these can be improved, and these measures can be
effectively implemented.
Mr. Westerman. So who would develop those standards?
Mr. Gritzo. Those standards would need to be developed by a
public-private and academic partnership. We believe there are
technical subject matter experts available in all of those
arenas that could contribute to this discussion. Ultimately,
obviously, they have to be practical for businesses and local
State and Federal entities to implement. And we would want to
take advantage of the wealth of knowledge in our universities
as well.
Mr. Pineda. If I could add that to do any type of levee
setback to move water away from the rivers into adjoining areas
to reduce water levels, the process kind of first begins with
simulation modeling. And the Corps of Engineers Hydrologic
Engineering Center, located in Davis, California, have been the
developers of world-recognized computer software programs. So
the modeling world has advanced substantially from when I first
started doing it with punch cards in the late 1970s. So
essentially you develop a computer model that simulates the
existing system and then you start, design additional models
that simulate your proposed alternatives and then run lots of
scenarios to determine how it would best work. So that is one
technical part of the planning process.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you for your graciousness, Madam
Chair, and I will yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
Next, we will go to Mr. Garamendi. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's see, super
floods, super hurricanes, atmospheric rivers, climate change.
This is the reality of today and even more so in the future. Do
all of you agree with that? No disagreement. Then we are going
to need to do things differently.
Mr. Pineda, in your testimony, you spoke to Public Law 84-
99 and the way in which it restricts us to think big about the
future, to think differently about the future. You have made
several recommendations in your testimony which, interestingly,
line up perfectly with Melissa Samet's testimony.
We are going to have to think differently here in this
year's or next year's Water Resources Development Act. We need
to provide the kind of flexibility and new mandates for the
Army Corps of Engineers and local flood control agencies to
adjust to the realities of climate change and more flooding.
That means, in my view, setbacks. And I would like to get into
this in more detail.
You make several recommendations, Mr. Pineda, in your
testimony about what we must do differently. Could you please
take the top three and explain what they are to us?
Mr. Pineda. With Public Law 84-99, you know, it is a repair
program after a declared disaster. So there is usually a rush
to fix the levees as soon as possible. Other infrastructure
could be repaired under Public Law 84-99 but sometimes we have
to take a pause to determine for each of the damaged sites
which is the best alternative. And many of the sites have been
damaged before. So you have to kind of analyze each one and
determine if there is a better solution for that particular
problem.
After a significant high water flood event in 1997 on the
San Joaquin River system, there were a series of levees in
three levee districts, which we call reclamation districts in
California's Central Valley that the Corps of Engineers,
through their planning process, determined that it would be
best to decommission those levees and let the flood waters move
into the area and essentially purchase a flowage easement in
those areas. And so that took a long time to implement but that
project eventually was done, so the levees were essentially
decommissioned out of the Federal-State system.
Again, you go back to the kind of the modeling process and
kind of having run simulations about what is the best way to
improve the system. And when an event comes and damages levees,
be ready to make proposals about the best way to make those
repairs. Which may not necessarily mean repairing the existing
levee in its current alignment. It may mean moving it back a
little bit.
Mr. Garamendi. So if we take the after event with Public
Law 84-99, could we, should we apply that before the event?
Should we apply before any project, any improvement to a levee,
any strengthening, any raising of a levee? Should we also
analyze the opportunity to do setbacks, expanding the flood
control of the flooded area to provide a surge capacity? And if
you will answer that quickly and then we will go to Ms. Melissa
Samet for a response.
Mr. Pineda. I agree with that proposal, sir, and that's
essentially part of the very detailed planning process that the
Corps and its partners do, or that its partners do and then
implement through the Corps of Engineers 408 process, which
means you are building a project ahead of the Corps of
Engineers. And the State of California working with its
partners in the Valley have done various levee setbacks and we
have one underway right now on the Yolo Bypass.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you.
Mr. Pineda. So it is being done in the field right now but
it takes a lot of effort and technical expertise, but that
expertise is out there throughout the United States.
Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Samet, very quickly.
Ms. Samet. Yes, I would say preplanning is essential and
you can start by looking at critical pinch points and really
documenting the repetitive levee failure so we know right away
those are the problem areas and start right there. Preplan for
what you are going to do in case of disaster, or ideally
actually just go ahead and set those back initially.
Mr. Garamendi. So as we write our new law, Madam Chair, I
would recommend that we build into it incentives and
specificity that this be taken into account in the 408 as well
as in repair process. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Babin, you
are recognized.
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you
Madam Chair and Ranking Member Westerman for convening this
important hearing on our Nation's water resources and the
governing legislation that forms its policies, the Water
Resources Development Act. I would also like to thank you,
witnesses, distinguished guests, for testifying today.
As this committee knows, my congressional district, the
36th Congressional District of Texas, is home to three highly
important Civil Works projects of great economic benefit to the
United States. Number one, a project to deepen and widen the
Houston Ship Channel currently undergoing a review by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Number two, a federally funded project
to deepen and widen the Cedar Bayou Navigation Channel. And
number three, a federally funded project to deepen and widen
the Sabine-Neches Waterway.
Starting with number one, the Port of Houston, this ship
channel is the busiest, deep-draft waterway in the Nation with
approximately 22,000 deep-draft vessel transits each and every
year, and more than 20,000 barge movements. This waterway
supports more than 200 industrial facilities that make up the
Port of Houston which is the Nation's number one export region,
a leading port for foreign commerce, and the top U.S. energy
port. The Port of Houston is also home to the largest
petrochemical manufacturing complex in America. National energy
security relies on the Port of Houston where 27 percent of U.S.
gasoline and 60 percent of aviation fuel is produced. This
activity sustains nearly 3 million U.S. jobs, generates more
than $617 billion in economic impact, and provides $35 billion
in tax revenues each and every year.
Number two, we have the Cedar Bayou Navigation Channel. It
is an 8-mile channel which feeds into the Houston Ship Channel.
It is used by barges and other vessels to serve the chemical
aggregate and metal industries along the channel, including
several aggregate and steel companies.
And lastly we have the Sabine-Neches Waterway, which
Congressman Weber and I share. The Sabine-Neches Waterway is
one of the most critical energy and military transit assets of
our Nation. The waterway is home to the Port of Beaumont which
is the largest strategic military port in the country holding
55 percent of the Nation's oil reserves. This ongoing deepening
and widening project will increase jobs by nearly 61 percent in
Texas and our Nation. It will increase our Nation's annual GDP
by nearly $58 billion and provide $1.6 billion and $6 billion
in increased tax revenue for Texas and the Nation,
respectively.
I have been a member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee for the past 5 years where I was proud
to help in the passage of a Water Infrastructure Improvements
for the Nation Act in 2016 and America's Water Infrastructure
Act in 2018, and both WRDA 2016 and 2018, respectively. Both of
these bills advance critical water resources in U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers policy to help strengthen our Nation's flood and
storm surge protection, deepen and widen our Nation's critical
economic engine waterways, and provide much needed reforms to
the Corps' project delivery processes.
The reason I highlight these immensely important projects
is that as we develop a WRDA over the next few months, we need
to address changes to key Army Corps policies that would
provide better efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of
hurricane and storm damage protection while ensuring the
viability of critical economy-driving projects like the ones
that I just mentioned. While these projects provide great
economic value to Texas and the Nation as a whole, the real
value is the many men and women who work at or along these
waterways. Not providing a necessary level of resilient
protection, that would be doing them a huge disservice.
So my question this morning is in what ways, and I direct
this to Ms. Ufner if you don't mind, my question to you is in
what way should we improve collaboration with infrastructure
agencies like the Corps going forward to make sure that vital
projects of this country's infrastructure and economy are
completed in a timely manner? Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for that question, Congressman. First,
we need to break down barriers among agencies so they can
communicate. And then it goes back to the stakeholders. As we
discussed earlier, we live in a resource constrained
environment, correct?
Dr. Babin. Absolutely.
Ms. Ufner. We have a limited amount of money. Stakeholders,
including the non-Federal sponsors who are responsible for the
projects and making sure communities are safe, they work
closely with the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure that
these projects meet the demands as intended by their
communities.
We would also recommend as we move forward in a next WRDA
that Congress authorize a study in the National Academy of
Sciences on natural-based infrastructure to see the role that
they may play in projects. Typically as part of such studies,
the Academy's Water Science and Technology Board holds open
meetings and they invite non-Federal sponsors and other
stakeholders to come and present their views.
Additionally, as the Corps moves forward, any time that
there is an opportunity to provide public comment on any of
these ideas, we would welcome the opportunity.
Dr. Babin. OK, thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Babin. Next I will
recognize Mr. Carbajal. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and first let me
start by congratulating Julie Ufner in her post with the NWC. I
worked with Julie for many years when I was in local government
with the National Association of Counties, so congratulations
on your new post, Julie, and good to see you again.
Mr. Pineda, thank you for coming today as we begin the
reauthorization process for the Water Resource Development Act,
also known as WRDA. From my time serving as county supervisor
in Santa Barbara County, California, I know that one of the
biggest issues local governments face when working on Federal
projects is the need for technical expertise from Federal
agencies. In your testimony, you specifically mention the need
for the Army Corps of Engineers to take on an enhanced role in
providing technical assistance and problem solving to help with
local needs.
Can you elaborate further on what you mean by this? And
two, are there any existing programs the Corps could expand to
further this goal? I know you discussed the Floodplain
Management Service, FPMS program, as a potential solution.
Mr. Pineda. Yes, thank you, Congressman. The Corps has
three programs: Planning Assistance to States, Floodplain
Management Services, and one that started a couple years ago
called Silver Jackets. So those are existing programs, but I
can't comment on specific funding, but we believe that funding
could be substantially increased.
I think the main point that I would make is throughout the
country I believe there are 37 or 38 Corps district offices,
and three in California--San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the
biggest one, Sacramento--and the level of technical expertise
of engineers, scientists and planners within those districts is
tremendous. There's a strong esprit de corps and, but small
communities, Tribal nations, need that technical assistance
from the Corps, which is essentially right now in many cases,
outside of these small assistance programs, PAS, FPMS, and
Silver Jackets, they need another source of funding. It is
essentially they can't really help unless they can charge it to
a project.
So the technical expertise is there; the desire of the
employees to help small communities and other communities solve
their problems is there; but a lot of times it is getting the
delivery to the communities and being able to charge it to an
appropriate program.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Pineda, as you are probably
well aware, the Army Corps of Engineers has a significant
backlog. In my district alone, the Mission Creek Flood Control
Project has been in the works since the late 1960s. Let me
repeat that: the late 1960s. However, this project has
struggled with receiving Federal construction dollars. Despite
the numerous benefits the project would provide, in your
testimony you mentioned that the Corps has operated on a
restrictive framework that has not allowed it to modernize how
we calculate benefit-cost ratios.
Do you have any suggestions on how Congress can help tackle
this problem to ensure we are accounting for the numerous
environmental benefits a project may bring as well as
accounting for resiliency?
Mr. Pineda. Thank you, Congressman. I think I mentioned in
my testimony, and others talked today about the benefit-cost
ratio and essentially that would be under the principles and
guidelines, otherwise known as P&G, and I believe previous
Washington administration put forth kind of an update to those
called PR&G, principles, requirements, and guidelines, and
implementation guidance was being developed, and for a reason I
am not totally clear on, it did not proceed. So I believe those
new, at the time a couple years ago, those PR&G guidance took
into account trying to quantify the nontraditional benefits
that the Corps doesn't explicitly recognize right now such as
the ecosystem and life safety.
So right now we essentially generally calculate reduction
to damage to structures, houses and nonresidential structures,
but it needs to be expanded. This is not a new issue; it has
been going on for a long time, and that's why many States and
organizations working with the Corps sometimes build projects
on their own they believe have a positive benefit to cost ratio
calculated using a different methodology factoring into account
those other benefits.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Ms. Ufner, does NWC have any
thoughts on how to account or provide input on how to account
for environmental benefits that might raise the ratios with the
Army Corps?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you, Congressman. It's always good to talk
to you. We are encouraged by the work that is currently ongoing
in the Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center
to develop methods to evaluate and quantify these benefits. It
is a good first start. But we also are encouraging Congress to
move forward with a study through National Academy of Sciences
to really rigorously examine this because what works in one
part of the country, for example, what would work in California
may not work on the east coast. So we want to make sure that we
have a full study of the types of infrastructure that is
available and a good understanding about where it will work.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Mrs. Fletcher [presiding]. Thank you. I will now recognize
Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
thank members of the committee. General Galloway, it is nice to
see you again. Mr. Pineda, I appreciate the opportunity to see
you again as well, and I appreciate both of your all's efforts
in Louisiana in recent years.
A couple of questions. You both, or I guess many members of
the panel, talk about the need to improve our resiliency
standards. I couldn't agree more. Last Congress we passed the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act where, for the first time, we
actually established a resiliency definition and standard
within FEMA for how we rebuild and try to provide ample funds
to do so. We tried to break down some barriers or walls among
different funding sources to ensure that projects can actually
be built. For example, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
under FEMA which comes in the aftermath of a flood. We allowed
for those funds to be used to build Corps projects because
there is a $100 billion backlog of Corps projects.
Admiral Phillips, if Virginia is hit with a hurricane, if
you receive those funds and you determine that a Corps
authorized project is your best use of dollars, I want you to
be able to use those funds, and this Congress agreed and so we
changed that law. Do you agree that recovery dollars--we should
knock down walls that allow you to prioritize projects like
flood protection projects that are authorized through the Corps
of Engineers for you to build them if that is what your
priorities are, Admiral?
Admiral Phillips. So we certainly were heartened by the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of which you speak and some of the
processes that are changed there that give options not only to
use recovery dollars but also shuttling some funds, 6 percent I
believe, into predisaster mitigation projects which we are also
very interested in doing though FEMA. So certainly that
opportunity is there. Where States have the capacity to take
advantage of this, they absolutely will do it, and so when
Virginia is in a position, should it find itself in that
position, we would absolutely want to be able to have this
option or opportunity.
I think some of the challenges for coastal States is
getting themselves to the point where they have projects that
are Corps-ready and approved so that they can move on. And of
course we have seen in Virginia as we worked with these
feasibility studies, that is the intent and that concept to get
Corps-approved projects ready to go and on the books so that
then we could use them if we had to.
The challenge for Virginia is we have had two feasibility
studies, one is done, one is underway, and we have a whole
State's worth of coastline that is at extreme risk. So hence
the interest in perhaps expediting that by looking at full
coastal study for the State.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Does anybody on the
panel object to the concept of giving you more flexibility in
recovery dollars and being able to use those for a Corps of
Engineer authorized project that otherwise doesn't have
funding? I mean, again, recognizing there is a $100 billion
backlog in Corps of Engineer projects. You have a disaster,
this project is going to help you with resiliency, it is going
to help give confidence to your community to rebuild. Does
anybody object to being able to have that flexibility?
Mr. Gritzo. Certainly no objections. In fact, we advise
businesses that it is always cheaper to avoid a loss than
recover from one afterwards, and in many cases some of those
businesses never recover.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
General Galloway. Could I just make the point that
unfortunately if you don't give time-sensitive funding to these
projects, many of them will just slip by the wayside and they
will never get taken care of. So speeding things up, giving the
solution there rather than have somebody come up with some
alternative solution that just doesn't work is going to make a
big difference. You are going to get things done that need to
be done and it is driven by the local level.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you, General. And
Madam Chair, I want to make note that every member of the panel
agreed--I am sorry, were you going to----
Ms. Samet. I was just going to add, if I may, that we do
support the need to leverage funding across the funding
streams, but it is important to make sure that the same
standards and environmental reviews are applying and that the
money that is being directed to resilient projects is actually
going to resilient projects.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Absolutely, couldn't agree more,
and keep in mind that any project that is authorized by
Congress through the Corps of Engineers would have to go
through a NEPA process prior to.
But Madam Chair, I want to make note, every member of the
panel agreed, yet just yesterday we passed a bill that would
actually prevent community development block grant disaster
recovery funds from being used for Corps of Engineer projects.
It doesn't make sense and it is contrary to what this committee
has been doing. It wasn't our bill, as you know, but contrary
to what this committee has been doing.
General Galloway, I want to ask you this, all of you, and I
want to ask this question for the record because I am out of
time. All of you talked about the need to build more resilient
projects. Couldn't agree, better resiliency standards. We have
a $100 billion backlog. General, you worked with the Corps for
decades. To add new standards doesn't do any good if we can't
actually deliver projects. The Corps is taking decades in some
cases to deliver projects. I would love your all's
recommendations on how to improve the Corps project delivery
process.
I yield back.
General Galloway. It is a challenge to figure out how you
deal with that.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. It is, but I would appreciate if
you all could submit in writing just your thoughts if you have
any on how to improve it, I would appreciate it. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired
so I will now recognize Mr. Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Or Chair.
Mrs. Fletcher. I will take it.
Mr. Lowenthal. I will take it. I'll give it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lowenthal. You know, I have been really fascinated by
following the discussion on the use of natural infrastructure
by the Corps, and so I am going to go to Ms. Samet. You haven't
chimed in yet. We have had others specifically, although it was
in your testimony very, very completely, and I am interested in
following up on your testimony on the use of natural
infrastructure in Army Corps projects. And you know I am a
member of SEEC and vice chair and we have advocated that the
Congress include policy to increase the use of natural
infrastructure for stormwater management, coastal protection,
water filtration, storage.
And you mentioned in your testimony these projects can help
meet the needs of our communities while also benefiting the
fish and wildlife. But too often they face significant hurdles
due to, as has already been pointed out, the Army Corps
benefit-cost analysis. That is really what we are going to be
looking at specifically. And in a recent GAO report, the Corps
stated that it has launched a project to develop better
information and research to make sure that its analysis
captures all the benefits associated with natural
infrastructure. As you mentioned in your testimony, small
investments in nature-based solutions like oyster reefs and
wetlands can provide billions in flood protection.
So my first question is, has the Army Corps consulted with
you or any of the National Wildlife Federation folks about
these efforts to better measure the benefits of natural
infrastructure? Have you been consulted in any way or do you
know of organizations like it who have been consulted by the
Corps to get input?
Ms. Samet. I have not been consulted. As far as I know, the
National Wildlife Federation has not been consulted in this
way. I think it is great that the Corps wants to look into
this. I would also highlight a couple of things. One, there is
a robust knowledge base out there on how to value ecosystem
services, and so that should be, from our perspective, a part
of it. This whole improvements to the cost-benefit analysis,
and not just looking at project benefits but also looking at
project costs because if a project, if the actual cost of a big
structural project isn't properly accounted for, you can't make
a reasonable assessment of whether in fact it may be more cost
effective to go with a natural infrastructure solution. So
fixing both the cost side problems with the Corps, BCR, and
also the benefits side is very important.
And I do think there is--it is great that the Corps is
engaging in this, but there is a lot of information out there
that they can draw from. They don't have to create the wheel on
this.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, that gets me to the second part. What
actions should we be taking here, then, in Congress in the next
WRDA bill to address these challenges in the benefit-cost
analysis?
Ms. Samet. Well, we would strongly recommend that you
actually tell the Corps in law what they have to account for,
and things that they can't account for. And so if you say you
have to look at Corps of Engineers, and of course this is
written into law in some sections on how you do benefit cost,
so in addition to the new PR&G, which are very valuable,
Congress, from our perspective, should actually tell the Corps
what they should look at. That would include accounting for
ecosystem services gained as a benefit, ecosystems services
lost as a project cost. Also prohibiting the Corps from
accounting for benefits that derive from draining wetlands,
that derive from encouraging people to come into harm's way and
adversely impact healthy, natural systems. So there are the
things that should be added and things that should be excluded.
And also fully accounting for project costs, and I think
you have heard that. The Corps does its cost benefit analysis
based on 50 to 80 percent of engineering design, and the
detailed technical specifications can add a significant amount
to the actual cost, and it could be much more effective to be
looking at some of that upfront instead of waiting afterwards
to then hit the local sponsor and the taxpayers with a whole
lot of extra costs associated with the project.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Weber
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair. General, I want to go to
you first. You said in your comments that a lot of this
infrastructure is outdated and undersized to systems. And we
are talking about backlog of the Corps now. If you looked at
the backlog of the Corps, if we could do a lot of those
projects--have those projects been on the books so long that
those projects could be deemed as outdated?
General Galloway. Yes, sir. They certainly need another
look because so much has changed. We know that the conditions
that we have to operate under have changed, and what would be
satisfactory in 1996 won't be satisfactory today. So you almost
start with a need to look at the risk. But I would suggest that
the Corps tries its best to see these projects and continue to
monitor to see if there is any extremely significant changes
that occur. You can't have a backlog that long and for that
long a period and not have problems.
Mr. Weber. And still be considered current.
Melissa Samet, is that how we say that, Ms. Samet? OK, I am
over here. It's OK. So and this might be for you as well. So
General or Ms. Samet, am I saying that right?
Ms. Samet. Samet.
Mr. Weber. Samet, OK. If you could take those backlog of
projects and you could say, look, some of those could be merged
with natural infrastructure, would that be a way to get some of
those accomplished? I will go with you first and then her
second.
General Galloway. Well, I think you would certainly want to
go to the locals and find out what is--here are some options,
here is what you have now in the project, and here is what it
might be if you were to consider other things, because we have
learned a lot in the last 30 years, especially about nature-
based projects, and to see what they want to do. The problem
with driving ahead with what you had, is the population has
changed; the nature of the threat has changed. And so you
really need to take the time to do it quickly but do it right,
and then come up with the project that is necessary.
Mr. Weber. Right. And how about you, Ms. Samet?
Ms. Samet. I definitely agree with that. Going back and
taking another look could give you a whole new approach--come
up with a whole new approach to address your problem but in a
much less costly and less destructive way at the end of the day
with a healthier and happier community as an end result.
Mr. Weber. So many natural disasters are occurring, as John
Garamendi alluded to, and I am thinking about Katrina in New
Orleans, and the Army Corps got in gear and Congress--I wasn't
here then--got in gear and they did some things around New
Orleans, I mean out of pure necessity of course, and they acted
quickly. What could we learn from that, General?
General Galloway. Well, it is interesting. That is what
resilience means, that you are ready when something happens to
move ahead in the next phase into something that is better than
what you have got right now. And all too often we finish the
project and say we are done, and it will take care of itself.
But it turns out that nature is stronger than that. We have
seen that in Texas with Harvey. Things that we thought would
work didn't work and we hadn't thought through what would be
the next step afterwards. So it is planning ahead for the fact
that you are taking a hit and you want to get up and be better,
but you have thought about how will you be better; do you
really want to occupy that area that you are in right now;
could we have thought about that ahead of time.
Mr. Weber. Well, I have been here 6 years, 11 months, and
17 days, not that I am counting, and so my district was ground
zero for Harvey when it hit. I wasn't here during Ike or
Katrina. And there is a law, and I am trying to remember the
name of it for the life of me, that says you can't do more than
what was there. Can anybody help me with that? There is a bill
that says, you know, you can't build it back better, basically.
I am talking about disaster relief with houses and stuff like
that. Do you know the law I am talking about? I will find it.
General Galloway. Well, there is some in the issue of, Mr.
Pineda has already talked about, the Public Law 84-99 where you
can go with that; how much more you can improve. Because they
don't want that to be the source of a new project. On the other
hand, it doesn't make sense, as you have said in Houston, you
had areas that certainly were subject to flooding that nobody
thought were going to flood.
Mr. Weber. Right. And I live south of Houston, about 25
miles.
Mr. Pineda, you said in your comments that the Corps in
California, I forget what part, has designed a model that is
world-renowned in a simulation--where was that in California,
the Corps?
Mr. Pineda. Congressman, that was the hydrologic
engineering center in Davis and----
Mr. Weber. Davis, California.
Mr. Pineda [continuing]. So they developed software and
that is part of the Sacramento district.
Mr. Weber. When did they do that?
Mr. Pineda. I think they introduced, and General Galloway
may be able to help answer it, I was first exposed to it in the
late 1970s, but I think the computer programs came out earlier.
Mr. Weber. OK. Mr. Gritzo, you are shaking your head as if
you might know.
Mr. Gritzo. I don't know the details, Mr. Congressman, but
I certainly know of these kinds of tools.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Gritzo. And they are available today.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, thank you. Madam Chair, before I yield
back, I want to wish our friend, Bruce Westerman and Salud
Carbajal, both of them, a belated happy birthday yesterday. I
yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Happy birthday, Mr.
Westerman. I will now recognize Ms. Craig for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you to
all of the witnesses for being here today.
As you all know, the first 8 months of 2019 were some of
the wettest on record for the Nation. Flooding levels were
unprecedented in the Missouri, Mississippi, and Arkansas River
watershed, including the river towns in my district in
Minnesota, such as Hastings and Red Wing and Wabasha.
After spring floods subsided, snow melt added even more
water and sediment to the system, sediment buildup that is
required to be dredged by the Army Corps.
Heightened sediment levels continue to be a challenge for
the entire inland waterway system. The Corps are faced with a
yearly feat: how to dredge quickly enough to allow the river to
function on the economic engine that our business community and
farmers depend on, and now in Minnesota everything is starting
to freeze a little earlier than normal. So it has been quite
the season.
This fall I led a letter asking for the release of
emergency funding for around-the-clock dredging that was needed
to keep the river operational. I am told that next year's
dredging will likely be even more severe.
So I am going to broadly address this to all of the
panelists. The Corps operates and maintains critical flood
control, navigation, and environmental restoration projects
throughout the Midwest. What do you think about whether the
Corps has the resources they need to overcome this increased
flooding activity and correspondingly increased dredging?
And with what we are seeing with the change in weather
patterns all over, give me just some thoughts on what we need
to be thinking about from a forward-thinking perspective.
And then I will just add to that. How would passage of H.R.
2440, the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, help with readiness and resiliency?
General Galloway. I am willing to jump in----
Ms. Craig. Thank you, General.
General Galloway [continuing]. And say that Mr. Pineda made
a comment initially that we need to have a comprehensive look
at the Mississippi and Missouri. We have been talking about it.
We have tried to.
In the 1993 report, the big floods there, we have said this
area has not had the full inspection that it needs and the plan
developed to move it forward. That is still the case now, and
it is getting worse, as you have just said.
And so it means, too, we have to bring together our
navigation systems, our flooding systems. We have to think of
these as a concrete hole for the Upper Midwest.
And so I would support taking action to give the Corps the
responsibility to do a more comprehensive study that would
involve the issues that you are raising.
Ms. Craig. Would anyone else like to tackle that?
Mr. Pineda. Congresswoman, Ricardo Pineda here from
Association of State Floodplain Managers.
So, yes, the upper Missouri River system or the Missouri
River system, consisting of big dams on the main stem and some
dams on the tributary system, is very complex, but every State
and sometimes multiple States have river systems that flow
through multiple States.
So sometimes it is hard to find one partner to partner with
a study, and as General Galloway said, it is time for the Corps
with their engineering and scientific know-how in the various
districts in the Midwest to do some comprehensive systemwide
studies.
They have computational tools, and they have the talented
staff, and they can also reach out to universities and
consultants, as they have done in multiple studies throughout
the United States.
So you first kind of have to kind of study it, look at all
the benefits and what these existing, authorized projects
provide and how they were authorized and go through kind of a
detailed planning process in a very collaborative fashion with
State stakeholders and regional stakeholders.
Thank you.
Ms. Samet. If I could add, especially for the Mississippi,
I definitely agree. It needs a comprehensive look, and that is
going to include a really careful assessment of things that the
Corps is doing now that are working against its various
missions.
So that some of the navigation structures built in the
middle Mississippi River, for example, are increasing flood
height significantly. A lot of other activities are harming
habitat even though there is a restoration authority.
So the Corps' projects often work at cross-purposes. So
unless they are actually looking holistically at the system to
see what is the best way to let the system ideally act as a
river that is deep enough to carry navigation--we recognize
that--but let the system act like a river to the extent that it
can still address your concerns.
I think a lot of times less is more and people do not
really recognize that in the construct even of ecological
systems.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
I think I am out of time, Madam Chair. So I will yield
back. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaMalfa, you have 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
I want to just launch into, with a couple of our witnesses
here, the condition in California and its storage. As I look at
an updated number, our two largest projects being Lake Shasta
and Lake Oroville, Shasta has drawn down to a number, oh, right
around two-thirds of its capacity, and Lake Oroville is
approaching a number of about just about 50 percent of its
capacity.
We are seeing the reports. Now we are looking for a
condition. We are seeing a condition in California called
``abnormally dry,'' where, again, we topped off the reservoirs
pretty well last year.
So my concern is, and Mr. Weber was asking you, Mr. Pineda,
and maybe you toss that to Mr. Galloway and Mr. Gritzo there,
on the modeling that we are doing for flood or for rain, you
know, precipitation events in the coming winter here.
And so would you touch on what Mr. Weber's question was, or
did you have information on that?
You said a simulated model was developed in the 1970s or
1960s. Was it based on flood impact or how broad-based was the
modeling we are looking at for these conditions?
Mr. Pineda. Thank you, Congressman.
Ricardo Pineda here from Association of State Floodplain
Managers.
So essentially, the Corps of Engineers experts at the
Hydrologic Engineering Center, and I am sure they had
contributions from Corps districts from throughout the country,
developed a suite of models.
And in my day of modeling, it started with punch cards,
they were called. HEC-1, which is kind of the rainfall on the
ground, and how does that convert to flow in the river?
And then HEC-2 was how high does the water get in the
river, and then there was HEC-5 that dealt with reservoir
simulations.
So many of those have all been combined into suites of
models, and now they use GIS. So those models are there, and
those help along with our Federal partners, with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the River Forecast
Centers; they help predict the inflow to the reservoirs, like
the Shasta and Oroville and the contributing reservoirs
downstream.
And then we run models to determine how high the river is
going to get, and then that allows us for what we call
coordinated operations for all of the management of those
reservoirs if you have got multiple reservoirs feeding into the
river.
So there is a lot of software, and there is a lot of
experience required. And that has been going on for a while,
and it keeps on advancing way past the skills that I developed
in the early part of my career.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So what era were these developed here?
I thought I heard you say the 1970s for some of this
modeling.
Mr. Pineda. I think HEC-2, which was my first exposure to
the models, that was probably developed. The math has been
around for a while, and we used to do--when I took the class in
graduate school, we did the computations by hand, and then we
used the computer program with punch cards.
So I think that started in the 1960s, and maybe General
Galloway has more exposure to the history of the Hydrologic
Engineering Center.
But they have continuously evolved, and they are
essentially world leaders in the software.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Let's let him speak because I am running
short of time. Thank you.
Mr. Galloway, what would you add?
General Galloway. HEC is the world leader. People all over
the world are looking for it. What we have in this country is
highly talented consulting engineers that take some of the HEC
models and they put them into a specific application.
But, again, it is that HEC is leading the pack, and their
models are up to date. That is not the challenge. The challenge
is----
Mr. LaMalfa. With regards to the mapping of what is a flood
plain or how the reservoirs affect the flood plain, the
releases, then how full the reservoirs are kept during the
year?
General Galloway. Yes, they have, as Mr. Pineda mentioned,
they have a suite of models that deal with all aspects,
including some of the benefits and costs of having activities
take place in reservoir operations.
So they are a full-service hydrologic modeling organization
that is focused and----
Mr. LaMalfa. I am sorry. I have got to cut to the chase
here, sir.
And so how modern is it compared to the meteorology we have
available?
My understanding is that Scripps down in San Diego has a
tool to further update weather patterns and better predict how
much water we can carry.
My concern is we let all of the water out in the fall in
anticipation of we need the flood space, and we let too much
water out because we have old models. We are maybe overly
cautious.
And I do not want to say that disrespectfully of what the
flood control people have to do, but how are we going to
monitor that?
Mr. Gritzo, I saw you nodding your head on it. Please jump
in there.
Mr. Gritzo. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman.
The computational fluid dynamic models do a very good job
of modeling where the water goes once it comes out of the sky.
The challenge is determining the seasonal variation of climate
and the precipitation rates locally that affect the exact
problem I believe you are trying to discuss.
There is a number of climate models that are used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those ensemble
calculations are the best possible.
But it boils down to a seasonal forecast of climate and
local weather conditions, right down to precipitation rates as
a function of time, a key technical challenge.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So are we keeping up with the availability
of technology in the governing of our water supply?
Are they staying together or are we on the cusp of that?
Mr. Gritzo. Yes, sir. I believe there are opportunities to
make a better connection between those dots and to better
integrate those systems.
Mr. LaMalfa. Are we doing those? Something called the
``forecast-informed reservoir operations,'' a description.
Mr. Gritzo. I cannot speak to the details of that program.
I would have do some additional research.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I have got to bang through here.
Mr. Pineda?
Mr. Pineda. Yes, sir. You mentioned forecast-informed
reservoir operations. I am aware that that was done on Scripps
Institute, working with the Corps of Engineers for a reservoir
on the Russian River.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is this something we wish to be integrating
into the State water projects full speed?
Mr. Pineda. I believe we currently have for the State water
project in California forecast coordinated operations, and with
the needs assessment after the Oroville Dam incident, you know,
better hydrologic forecasting for the inflow to the reservoir,
which then dictates how you operate the reservoir as far into
the future as you can is definitely on our list.
And the FIRO, or the forecast-informed reservoir
operations, has been incorporated into the Folsom Dam.
Mr. LaMalfa. I wish I could get faster answers.
Thank you. I have got to yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
We go to Mrs. Fletcher. You are on for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Napolitano
and Ranking Member Westerman, for holding this hearing.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Of course, the Army Corps of Engineers has one of the most
critically important jobs in the country, and the WRDA 2020
bill that we are working on in this committee is one of the
most critically important bills in this Congress for my
constituents in Texas' Seventh Congressional District, as well
as the entire Houston region.
So I do want to associate myself with the comments of my
colleague and neighbor, Mr. Babin, about the incredibly
critical importance of the project to widen the Port of Houston
and the Houston Ship Channel.
And we are very much working on that anticipated project,
and I look forward to working with the committee on that as we
work on this bill.
In addition, on the West Side of town that I represent, the
Army Corps is responsible for essential infrastructure as it is
across the country, whether it is the port and the ship
channel, to dams and the reservoirs in my district, and that is
one of the things that I want to ask you all about today.
As many of you know, we have been talking just now about
weather, and the threats that the Corps' infrastructure
receives are changing, and the challenges to managing it I
think we are seeing increasing from the extreme weather events
that are continuing to grow.
The stress that it puts on the existing Corps
infrastructure is across the country, as you no doubt know. In
my own district, we were devastated by Hurricane Harvey, and it
was the single largest rainfall event in the United States
history.
We saw massive flooding, some of which took place only
after the Army Corps was forced to do a controlled release from
the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs because the existing
infrastructure could not keep up with the incredible amount of
rainfall.
At the same time, we have seen rainfall levels nearly that
high just this past fall. So we know that it is not an
aberration but a new reality that we have to be prepared for
that level of rainfall.
And I think it is important to understand how the Corps
looks at ways of carrying out its duties that reflect that
reality, that some of the infrastructure was designed at a
different time and for a different purpose.
I think, Mr. Pineda, you touched on this briefly, and I
want to revisit it, but one thing that we discuss in Houston
extensively is how the Corps calculates the benefit-to-cost
ratio, the BCR.
In certain watersheds it can be difficult to identify
projects that meet BCR requirements, even though the projects
would do structural flooding, and that is a critical issue that
we have got to tackle.
So this question really goes to anyone on the panel who
wants to address it.
What can the Corps do to revisit the BCR calculations to
allow for additional considerations that reflect the new
realities that our communities are facing in this changing
weather environment?
General Galloway.
General Galloway. I think I mentioned earlier that we have
the PR&G that came from the response to the Congress, produced
it, and it is now on hold.
You have real problems figuring out what the benefits are
for lower income for environmental issues when you ban that
sort of an activity, looking at the complete panoply of
benefits that exist.
And we know there is a lot already written about that, 10
years' worth of work on identifying what is happening, and as
we saw in the areas you are talking about in Houston, they do
not get a fair shake when you do not get the opportunity to
look at what benefits could accrue to them and how they are
different than the benefits that might be in the western part
of the city or somewhere else.
So we have it on the plate. It is here. It is sitting, but
it is held up in its use because of, I guess, objections to the
fact that it includes heavy reliance on environmental and
social costs and benefits which are necessary to deal with the
issues you are raising.
Ms. Ufner. Congresswoman, if I could just jump in, we
demand an enormous amount from our infrastructure, but we do
not fund it significantly enough, and as we are seeking more
resilient infrastructure, it would do better to fund it
upfront.
And just a note. A study into BCR was required in WRDA
2018, but it has not started yet.
Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to weigh in with the few seconds I
have left?
Ms. Samet. Yes, I would just add, if I could,
Congresswoman----
Mrs. Fletcher. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Samet [continuing]. That giving some clear direction to
the Corps on what they can and cannot count as benefits I think
would go a long way, and then asking them to reevaluate them on
an occasional basis.
And if I could also just add that this applies both to the
situation at the Addicks and Barker Reservoir and the
reservoirs in California. The Corps has the capacity and the
responsibility to update those water control manuals and take
advantage of the information and hydrologic models that are out
there.
But many of those operating plans are decades old.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, madam, Mrs. Fletcher.
On the updating of the manuals, I ran into that problem
with the Whittier Narrows. Those manuals are five, six decades
old.
And when I asked them would they update them, they said it
would not be practicable for them. That would take a lot of
time and money.
So anyway, the question is: do they update them with the
new information? That is something that we have got to delve
into.
Thank you.
Mr. Palmer, you are next.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
A couple of things, a lot of things that have been said in
the hearing that I think make a lot of sense, but there are
some things that I think that we need to address.
Dr. Gritzo, I appreciate your perspective from an
engineer's outlook on these things.
You said something in your written testimony. I think you
repeated it in your verbal testimony, that the risk is getting
worse due to heavier rains from warming climate and an
increasingly developed and hardened landscape.
I think obviously the climate is changing. The geologic
record shows that, but it is interesting that the last
International Panel on Climate Change report, the AR5, did not
include changes in flooding to anthropogenic influence from
reported detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration, or
frequency.
What they are saying is in the context of climate change,
they do not see that. I take exception to part of it, in that
at the end of your point here of hardened landscape, that some
of the big problems that we are facing with flooding is
development, the hardening of the landscape, land use, the
failure to use natural resources to mitigate flood.
And I want to point that out and then suggest to you that
if we understand fully what is happening in the climate, again,
go back and look at the geologic record. We have gone through
multiple periods of climate change when the temperature is
warmer than it is now.
And you see in the record that you have had major weather
events like flooding or extreme temperatures. Yet we need to be
prepared to adapt and mitigate. I think we have the
technological ability and the engineering ability to do that,
whether it is sea level rise, whether it is extreme weather.
Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Gritzo. Well, certainly in terms of looking at
individual events, it is not possible to attribute any
individual event to any single effect. We know that there are a
number of effects that occur.
But we can say that we----
Mr. Palmer. It is a multitude of things.
Mr. Gritzo. Exactly.
Mr. Palmer. And that is the point that I think concerns me
about the whole debate around climate change is we get so
wrapped up in CO2 that we miss the other things that are
actually happening that we are going to have to deal with.
Go ahead.
Mr. Gritzo. I agree. All of these things are contributors.
What you can say with certainty is that warmer air holds
more water, and when warmer air releases that water, it
typically comes at higher precipitation. That is a basic
thermodynamic law.
How that manifests itself in precipitation rates in
different areas will strongly vary. We know the hardening of
the landscape, the change in land use and increased development
are exacerbating losses significantly.
So there are contributing factors, all of which lead us to
the point where we have to be able to manage the change in not
only the hazard and the flood hazard, but also the
vulnerability to losses.
Mr. Palmer. If you do not properly define what is causing
the change though, it is a fairly simple engineering principle
if you get the definition wrong, the solution probably is not
going to work.
Mr. Gritzo. Yes, sir. I certainly agree with that. I think
the best resource in that is the reanalysis data, the 35 years
of NOAA reanalysis data that we have.
We certainly should not hang our hats on 100- and 500-year
events from 35 years of data.
Mr. Palmer. Right, and that is a great point, and that is
the thing that concerns me about where we are heading, is that
we are using really miniscule historic data when we need to be
looking at epochs in terms of the data to prepare for this.
One example of failure to mitigate, and I do not want to be
disparaging toward the Corps of Engineering, but they studied
building a diversion canal from the Comite River over to the
Lilly Bayou in Louisiana for 30 years and never put a shovel in
the ground.
And then we had that 100-year flood, cost us billions of
dollars, lost lives, and now the Corps is building that
diversion canal. That is the type of mitigation, forward-
thinking mitigation and adaptation that I think we need to be
doing to prepare for what we know eventually is going to occur
in the terms of climate change that we cannot do anything
about.
Madam Chairman, I thank you for the time, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Malinowski, your 5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Samet, you mentioned in your written testimony the
toxic algae outbreaks in Florida's coastal estuaries and
elsewhere. I was struck by that partly because I spent much of
yesterday in my district in New Jersey on the banks of Lake
Hopatcong, which is the largest lake in New Jersey, a place
that is beloved by people in the district that I represent as a
place of recreation, a place where folks spend their summers.
It was mostly shut down last summer because of a harmful
algae bloom outbreak. Other lakes in New Jersey experienced
similar things, Budd Lake, also in my district, and others.
So I wanted to ask you or any other members of the panel
who might wish to comment if you can go into any more detail on
how we might be able to use the upcoming WRDA bill to tackle
this challenge of harmful algae blooms that so many of us, I
think, are dealing with back home.
Ms. Samet. Well, it is definitely a complicated problem for
sure. I think from the Corps' perspective across the country,
it seems from my perspective it goes back to the value, that
multiple value of natural infrastructure.
If you have robust wetlands systems, you have healthy small
streams feeding into those systems, and you have rivers that
function the way or at least attempt to mimic the way that they
historically have functioned, that a lot, not everything, but a
lot of the problems with algae blooms will actually wind up
being assimilated through the wetlands system itself and help
ameliorate that disaster.
And also by holding more water on the landscape it will
keep runoff from coming down all at once and creating massive
algae blooms at one time.
So I think, again, from the Corps' perspective, protecting
the wetlands that we have, restoring those that have been
degraded, and mainstreaming use of natural infrastructure as
the approach to addressing our flood problems will go a long
way to addressing some of those problems. It definitely will
not solve it all.
Mr. Malinowski. Any other comments from anyone on the
panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Malinowski. Maybe just staying on this subject then for
a moment, if you could maybe say a little bit about the role
that a changing climate has played in creating these outbreaks.
I mean, my understanding, at least talking to local folks
who manage these lakes in New Jersey, is that the harmful
bacteria have generally been killed over cold winters, and that
is not happening anymore simply because the temperature has
been warming.
Is that a fair assessment would you say?
Ms. Samet. That is my understanding. I am not quite an
expert in that, but on top of that issue of temperature, which
definitely plays into the situation, climate change with
increasing floods and increasing runoff and faster storms, you
are getting larger influxes into the system as well to begin
with, and then you have to deal with what the water temperature
will or will not address.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Admiral Phillips, you and others discussed the larger
challenge of extreme weather events, antiquated stormwater
infrastructure leading to flooding. I think a lot of us have
local problems.
In my district, several communities along the Rahway River
Basin, the Green Brook sub-basin in New Jersey have experienced
extreme flooding related to weather events, and we have been
working with the Corps in terms of building up resiliency.
You may have seen the Chairman Pallone of the Energy and
Commerce Committee who represents a coastal district in New
Jersey where a lot of my constituents spend their vacations. He
has introduced the Living Shorelines Act, a bill that supports
projects that use natural materials and systems, like dunes and
oyster reefs, to support the natural flood resilience of
shoreline ecosystems.
Can you elaborate a bit on how green infrastructure can be
more cost effective, number one, and also better suited for
slowing down runoff and floodwaters compared to traditional
gray infrastructure?
Admiral Phillips. Certainly, Congressman. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment, and I will be brief.
First of all, in Virginia, natural and nature-based
features as our first line of defense is our top priority as we
work to develop a coastal strategy and a plan for the State.
So we value that as a way to buy us time, to buy property
owners time, to buy businesses time as we figure out what other
kinds of infrastructure may be required in the future.
These are also things that can be implemented, as you have
pointed out and as others have pointed out on this committee,
for substantially reduced cost in many cases and that can be
given opportunities to evolve, to migrate over time so that the
benefits remain even though water and weather challenges and
climate influences continue to occur and continue to change the
infrastructure.
So we find them to be of particular import in our case in
Virginia because we are so low, because there is so much there
already, and the opportunity to build on and expand that is of
significant value to us.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I appreciate all of you being with us today.
I want to shift gears a little bit because of this
expertise here. General Galloway, you had the privilege of
noting that someone had the audacity in 1993 to recommend that
all the States along the Mississippi River get together and
talk about a comprehensive plan.
It has been a little while since then. Ms. Samet, I think
you all are parties to a lawsuit over a new water control
manual that affects my State. It was last updated in the 1950s.
You were absolutely right in your testimony when you said
we need to use new data and update these manuals though. As we
have seen in our case, as soon as we update one, lots of
different stakeholders are involved, and it is hard as a Corps
of Engineers employee to have everybody applaud job well done.
Generally, there are a few disparate voices out there.
Admiral Phillips is working with entire communities of
human beings who have been in place since the 1800s that are
being dislocated. Maryland is struggling with families that
have been there since the 1700s. My friends from Louisiana have
folks losing their land at the highest rate in the country.
So delay is a real problem here, not just in environmental
and wildlife terms, but in human terms.
You all have made a very compelling collective case that we
can do better, and I think every member on this panel agrees
with that.
What I do not understand is how we can do better, whether
it is 100 percent better or 10 percent better or 1 percent
better, and then get everybody onboard so that we can move
forward because I believe we are all disadvantaged by delay.
Hearing the collective support for using our very best
science for resiliency planning, how can I move the timeline
forward?
How can I bring this panel together to avoid that next
lawsuit, not because folks do not have a right to say this was
wrong, but because certainty advantages us all?
Does anybody have any guidance for me there?
And this is a good panel. We have both engineers and
nonlawyers on because of that.
Ms. Samet, do you have any guidance?
Ms. Samet. Yes, I do. And, yes, we are suing over the water
control manual so that everybody is aware.
There are a couple of things. One, the key to updating
water control manuals or any navigation operation plans is
really basing things on the best possible science and also
using the expertise of other Federal and State experts so that
the Corps has that input and then can rely on the kinds of
information that are provided.
If at the end of the day you have an environmental impact
statement on a new water control manual that is actually
looking at ways to improve the conditions for everybody while
still meeting project purposes, you will find that you are not
going to get a lawsuit.
So doing a better job upfront, and one of the things in
particular with respect to the ACF----
Mr. Woodall. Let me interrupt you, and I apologize for
that.
Among the different timing issues I would like to fix is
that we only have 5 minutes because your expertise requires
more than 5 minutes.
But as you noted earlier, the Corps is tasked with cross-
purposes. It is very difficult to do remediation and flood
control simultaneously. These things are sometimes categorical
opposites which will always allow for someone to file the
lawsuit to say, ``You did not parse the baby correctly.''
I need to get beyond that because we have got limited
resources here both in time and money, and we are flushing a
lot of them parsing babies that we all want to get parsed
correctly.
In your experience, General, did you have folks come back
and say, ``Job well done. One hundred percent we are good''?
We have had the Supreme Court speak out and say stop the
lawsuits, but it is very rare that we have found a way to come
together ahead of time to prevent the lawsuit, as Ms. Samet
accurately says would be the goal.
General Galloway. I think it is critical that we get
together ahead of time to try and do it. It is very difficult
now because there are so many roadblocks, barriers that you
cannot deal with this agency; you cannot deal with these
people.
We have got to find out what they are and eliminate them
because in reality, the EPA and the Corps and FEMA all want to
work together, but we cannot because of this or that.
So we need to find out what it is, get people at the table
together, and create the situations where we can work out new
manuals, new approaches, new plans that bring everybody into
the act and allow them to do that under the law.
What you are doing with the 800 cubic feet/second and WRDA
2018 is a great step forward like that.
Mr. Woodall. Well, I will close in that space since we are
practically in the circle of trust. Just five Members of
Congress are here, and the six of you all. We will not tell our
secrets.
Is there a reason that any of those walls exist that we
would not want to tear them down?
Is there a functional engineering reason, environmental
reason, States' rights reason?
Is there a reason we would not want to tear down those
walls?
I will assume there is not a reason, and we will keep going
forward. If there is a reason, if you would please submit that
in writing, I would be grateful and partner with you to get
that done.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Rouda, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the panel for coming here today and providing
testimony.
I am Harley Rouda. I am from Orange County, California. I
represent about 80 percent of the coastline of Orange County,
including Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna
Beach, a really wonderful area, but like other parts of the
country and around the world, we are experiencing on a regular
basis the impact of climate change and rising oceans.
But, fortunately, we are working hand in hand with the
Corps in addressing numerous issues, including projects that
include the Surfside-Sunset Beach nourishment project, dredging
at Newport Harbor, the Westminster at East Garden Grove
Channel, and Westminster Channel study, and the Santa Ana River
mainstream project.
I am going to start with you, Mr. Pineda. We have
experienced in California and, I think, have done a very good
job of understanding the value of bringing together both
natural barriers as well as man-made barriers.
And can you talk a little bit about how you have seen that
work in California and what are the opportunities to leverage
that across the U.S.?
Mr. Pineda. Thank you, Congressman.
So kind of natural solutions, I think, starts with giving
rivers room to grow relative to protecting beaches from
erosion. I think that has more been done on the east coast
where there have been a lot of studies in Louisiana and other
places and projects implemented where dune and marsh grass
restoration have been implemented and have helped reduce
shoreline erosion.
Also, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in areas that
are not part of our main channels, there are 1,100 miles of
levees in the delta. So there are a lot of side channels. They
have used a lot of brush mats, vegetation mats to prevent
erosion, and many times once you put those adjacent to the
levee, these are not Corps levees. So we have a little bit more
flexibility. They attract sediment and then vegetation grows
and provides erosion protection.
So those are a few examples of nature-based solutions. I
think the most important one is slowing the water down, getting
it out into the flood plains, which right now is kind of a new
method of recharging our very depleted groundwater in many
areas of California.
Mr. Rouda. In many cases the use of natural infrastructure
is actually more effective and less expensive than man-made
structures; is that correct?
Mr. Pineda. Generally so. I think the issue becomes, and
General Galloway and some of the other people on the panel
could comment. Putting your engineer stamp on some of the
nature-based approaches sometimes may be a difficult thing. So
we need to kind of get over that kind of hurdle.
But they generally are less costly, and they can be very,
very effective.
Mr. Rouda. General Galloway and Ms. Samet--am I pronouncing
that correctly? Thank you.
For the two of you, and this is closely aligned with that
question I just had, is mitigation. Right now the Army Corps is
meeting 58 percent of its required annual mitigation, which
means 42 percent is not being met.
Can you elaborate a little bit as to what that impact means
for our ability to address properly the issues we are trying to
handle?
General Galloway. I can only say I am not familiar with
where those are not taking place, but it is very clear, and
this has happened over a long period of time, that when you get
into a priority list or either a shortage of dollars or there
is a shortage of time, that tends to slip.
There is a push for the concrete to go in, but there is not
the push for nature-based or mitigation projects to go simply
because you can see the results of the concrete. You can have a
ribbon cutting, but the others are going to take several years
to do, and they may be wonderful when they get there, but
people are still skeptical.
And it becomes an issue of dealing with the skepticism of
those that may control or influence the decisions.
Mr. Rouda. Ms. Samet as well, just very briefly.
Ms. Samet. Yes. I would also say, I mean, by not doing the
mitigation, you are actually losing the resilience that we are
all talking about trying to increase. Mitigation is just going
to take you, if it works, to zero or no net loss or no loss.
The Corps, unfortunately, has a history of not prioritizing
mitigation as it should, and also in some cases for
longstanding operation projects, they are not actually
implementing or requiring mitigation at all.
Mr. Rouda. Great. Thank you very much.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouda.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you are on for 5 minutes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today is the 526th anniversary of the Europeans arriving to
America, specifically Puerto Rico. Still, 2 years ago, a major
disaster made many in the U.S.A. discover that Puerto Rico is
part of America.
Still 2 years after that, we are still struggling with many
of the losses regarding mitigation in Puerto Rico and without
adding the beach erosion, which is a big issue around the
island.
I actually got several suggestions to the new amendment to
the WRDA Act, specifically, with the qualifying years, when we
talk about the limits of what can be completed as long-term
projects and immediate ones.
One of the issues is that for projects to be authorized
under the bipartisan Budget Act and the supplementals regarding
acquisition of land, easements, rights-of-way, revocation,
disposable areas that now can allow non-Federal sponsors or
municipalities or even States may request that the Corps
perform a decision required on their behalf.
The full Federal share allows this to be done directly all
throughout the allowance made by the bipartisan act, and this
is one of the main issues we got back home when we were looking
to the $2.5 billion that has been allocated just for mitigation
under the Corps of Engineers.
But yet the local non-Federal sponsors got several problems
to actually manage to get the money because of this.
The second issue will be the section 103 and increasing the
project limit for section 205, the flood and damage mitigation,
and section 103, beach erosion from $10 million to $20 million.
Section 14, which is the emergency streambank, from $5
million to $10 million for continuing authorities program, or
the CAP Projects in the areas impacted by Irma and Maria for
periods, or even Harvey, for 5 years.
And why is this? I mean, we do have several projects that
are being studied, investigated, authorized, even planned, but
they exceed the amount of the cap of the money in those two
sections.
So we do have a lot of those areas that are still having
the problems in the communities, and then we face another
situation that actually General Galloway mentioned during his
presentation or his statement.
Specifically, when we are talking about the areas, in many
cases they do not meet the cost-benefit cap, and in our case,
the need to include resilient infrastructure, not just digging
and dredging, but at the same time losses of other projects in
towns big and small are not being approved in many cases
because they just do not meet with the criteria of the cost-
benefit.
And that takes me to a direct question to General Galloway.
In your testimony, you know that continuing reliance primarily
on economic justification of projects makes it difficult for
those in rural and low-income areas to justify projects that
will give them considerable social and health benefits, and
that a broader range of factors should be considered in project
justification. I totally agree with you.
So how can we use another term of what risk reduction in
rural and low-income areas is?
I mean, what is a specific recommendation we can include,
General Galloway?
General Galloway. The specific accommodation is to move
back to the PR&G, which gives greater flexibility to
considering health and other social costs and benefits of
projects, and where you can identify the project as a whole and
find that there is a social benefit that rises to the same
level as an economic benefit.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. You also state in your testimony, and
I can be a witness of this, many Federal agencies have a shared
interest in mitigating against future floods and storms,
including the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, HUD, USDA,
Department of the Interior, among others.
And they do have many barriers between them. What can we
do? How do you recommend this committee address this overlap of
functions that many times actually stop the help getting to
those communities?
General Galloway. I have watched this for many years. It
goes back to the 1993 flood and all the floods that have been
since, and the agencies go out and want to accomplish the work.
Their lines are very narrow.
What we do not do is at the end of the operation come back
and say, ``What could we have done better? What is the report
on the event and the recovery? What could we have done better?
What barriers should we knock down? And how could we, for
example, have HUD and the Corps of Engineers work together
using an exchange of money that would be authorized by the
Congress?''
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
And thank you to the rest of the witnesses. I will submit
the rest of my recommendations and questions for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
We will go to Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Exactly 7 years ago New York City was recovering from the
worst natural disaster in its history, Super Storm Sandy. The
storm did not just cause flooding in predictable low-lying
areas, such as the Rockaways off the South Shore of Staten
Island.
It also brought up seawater into downtown Manhattan and the
financial district. I will never forget the photograph of the
southern part of Manhattan being dark without energy.
And in my district in East Harlem, a comparatively low-
lying area, they also saw severe flooding, the likes of which
residents had never experienced in a generation. New York is
still working to repair the damage the storm caused to our
infrastructure, particularly subway tunnels under the East
River and long neglected bulkheads and seawalls.
But the truth is climate change is real, and the likelihood
that we will see another Sandy in the next few years is
uncomfortably high. Historic flooding is happening everywhere,
as many of my colleagues have reported.
And we just saw the newspaper accounts of what is happening
in Venice, Italy, many of the streets flooded at record high.
But I feel the approach to all of this is too piecemeal.
Oftentimes the answer to addressing this climate crisis is
based on upfront costs rather than long-term savings. Meanwhile
we will end up spending billions of dollars rebuilding
standards that do not foresee the worsening of the climate over
the coming years.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is looking into ways
to protect New York City's harbor, and the main option being
explored is a giant underwater seawall that will come up at
times of extreme storm surge to protect the low-lying areas
around the harbor from flooding.
However, many have criticized this as unable to meet the
problem at hand. New York's comptroller, Scott Stringer,
recently released a comprehensive resilience report where he
cites concern with the project.
As I understand it, authorization for the study dates back
to the Eisenhower era, authorizing to protect areas from large
coastal storms. But that policy never envisioned really sea
level rise from climate change. It was never really considered.
When critics like Comptroller Stringer and others have
raised that concern, the Corps has often cited the narrow
authorization as the reason they cannot explore a broader array
of options.
I also feel that no matter what we come up with, the sheer
sticker shock of this critical resiliency project will prevent
us from taking the right actions before it is too late.
So I ask any of the panelists the following two critical
questions.
First, what kinds of changes can we make in the upcoming
WRDA to address this problem because, as we have all heard here
today, New York clearly is not the only place facing this
challenge?
And second, would you say that the way the Federal
Government currently addresses resiliency projects is pennywise
and pound foolish?
What do you think should be the change? What do we need to
do to change the way we approach these critical investments?
Anybody on the panel can answer any of the two questions.
Mr. Pineda. Congressman, let me chime in just a second, and
I mentioned in the written testimony and the oral testimony
about the Corps Silver Jackets Initiative. To a certain degree,
that initiative was working before it was called Silver
Jackets, where the Corps was partnering with FEMA and States
and other Federal agencies.
But essentially, as I understand it, the main focus of
Silver Jackets is to bring the Federal partners together to
work with the State and regional partners. So greater funding
of Silver Jackets and giving it stronger direction for the
Federal agencies to work together kind of at the beginning
level could help look at problems like the one you were
describing and better define what each agency's role then would
be for a comprehensive system.
So they are not authorized to build projects, but they can
get together and talk together with the locals and better
define who does what and how; what is the optimal way to work
together with the Federal agencies.
Mr. Espaillat. What about the consideration of the sea
level rise aspect of any new project that will prevent these
kinds of impacts by the next Super Storm Sandy?
General Galloway. Congressman, being from Maryland where,
as you know, we have the Eastern Shore across the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge, and it is facing the tremendous problems with sea
level rise. What that does each and every day, it gives us new
benefits and new costs of having to deal with this.
I think in the case of New York City, that is the challenge
going back to how you establish the benefit-cost ratio. If, in
fact, you only include those things that make great economic
sense, and that is not to say you should not consider that, but
if you are not considering that the people that live in these
areas, that the people are part of the solution.
The people need to be protected. There needs to be
something done for them. You are never going to get that kind
of a project in a low-income area funded.
It has got to have the support of what is in this PR&G that
says you can consider that that is as important, that health
and welfare is going to be as important as having a robust
city, but we need to do them both.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Ms. Finkenauer, you have 5 minutes.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, Chairwoman.
And thanks so much for all of the folks that came to
testify today. It means a lot that you took the time.
I know, Dr. Galloway, in your testimony as we look to make
meaningful investments in resilient infrastructure, one of the
barriers that you mentioned in your testimony are policies that
make it harder for Federal agencies, as well as cities and
States, to work together on solutions.
Many of the communities in my district have flood control
projects that were funded by the Army Corps of Engineers, but
some are now struggling to get Federal assistance to make
improvements or repairs in these projects.
For example, the city of Waterloo was actually just
disqualified for a FEMA hazard mitigation grant to upgrade
their station or build a new levee around their riverfront
stadium because it is part of an existing levee system that was
constructed by the Army Corps.
I understand that the city is responsible for the cost
associated with the operation and maintenance of this project,
but blocking Federal financing from going towards important
flood project infrastructure does not make sense.
Mr. Galloway, how would lifting this prohibition and
allowing communities like Waterloo to use Federal grants to
upgrade Army Corps flood control projects help promote
investments in resiliency?
General Galloway. It is a move toward common sense, and
when you talk to the agencies, and we have gone around
Washington. We have gone around these communities where it is a
problem. We are told the same thing. We would like to help but
we cannot. We would like to get together, but we cannot.
The silo does exist, and the people are very busy. So they
do not necessarily walk across the street to see even in their
own community another agency, stormwater versus flood control.
The way it has got to be is something has to be in the
culture of resilience that says you want to work together. When
you find a way that prevents you, something that prevents you
from doing that, let us know, and we will track it down.
I do not think that that is what we see certainly here in
Washington, cries from Waterloo that, well, we have this
problem where they do not get together and they cannot get
together or they say that is not authorized. We need to figure
out how we solve that.
And I believe these are solvable because the people that
are doing this work really want to do it.
As Mr. Pineda said, we have this planning assistance with
the States and the Corps of Engineers Floodplain Management
Services. Back in 2005, right before Katrina, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army and FEMA were together in Alaska for a
conference, and they said, ``We really need to get more money
into this so we can get out and help people solve these
problems and work them.'' And they said they would get them.
When you look at the amount of money we have put into these
now, including Silver Jackets, it has not grown. We have got to
find a way to get the help to the people to help them solve the
problem together and then move ahead with what is a more
logical approach to some of these issues.
Ms. Finkenauer. Absolutely, and I would love to open this
up to you. I just have a few minutes left so if anybody wants
to jump in.
If you can touch on, you know, what would the change mean
and what would that impact feel like for our smaller and our
rural communities at places like Iowa-1 where I represent quite
a few of.
Admiral Phillips. Congresswoman Finkenauer, I will jump in
please. Thank you for the opportunity, and I understand the
timeline.
So in coastal Virginia, we have a number of underserved,
lower income communities who are parts of cities, who are
working very hard to try to find solutions to deal with their
flood impacted future.
And what we are finding is that in some cases, one agency's
cost-benefit analysis, HUD under the CDBG program, will meet
cost benefits that will support these communities and allow us
to do work in these communities using that opportunity, whereas
an Army Corps cost-benefit for the same kinds of circumstances
will not.
So the challenge is how do we pull together the nuances of
whatever HUD is using that allows us to get an adequate cost-
benefit and apply it to Corps projects in a way that perhaps
will develop some sort of shared system where different
agencies are allowed to come together.
It is disappointing to hear that CDBG money is prevented
from supporting Army Corps projects. That is not helpful
because those are key critical opportunities available to the
underserved that we, at least in Virginia, take a lot of
advantage of, and so do other coastal communities.
Thank you.
Ms. Finkenauer. Well, thank you, everybody. I really
appreciate it.
And with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Finkenauer.
Ms. Wilson, you have 5 minutes. You are recognized.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today's hearing is very timely as Floridians are actively
fighting the effects of climate change and working to improve
the resiliency of our water infrastructure. Extreme
hydrological events have laid bare many of the challenges
impacting Florida's water infrastructure.
They have overwhelmed the State's aging stormwater and
wastewater treatment facilities which are in desperate need of
maintenance and repair and have caused massive overflows and
extensive flooding.
As such, resiliency planning has become a cornerstone of
our efforts to bolster our ability to withstand and respond to
increasingly severe hydrological events.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been working very
closely with the communities in my district to help improve
this. Recently the Army Corps partnered with Miami-Dade County
to facilitate a discussion with experts, officials, and
concerned citizens as part of a 3-year study to help reduce
risk from storms and sea level rise.
In addition to sharing ideas for tackling sea level rise
challenges that are unique to south Florida, stakeholders have
also urged the Army Corps to reevaluate projects like the 70-
year-old central and south Florida flood control system for
opportunities to strengthen resiliency from increasingly
intense hydrological events.
Local leaders have committed significant resources to
combatting sea level rise and improving resiliency, but the
Federal Government must be more supportive.
It is my hope that the next WRDA bill will contain
additional provisions to help tackle climate change and improve
the resilience of vulnerable communities like those in south
Florida.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just
that.
I have a couple of questions. Ms. Samet, as you noted, the
Federal Government has lagged in its funding commitment to
restore the Everglades. Beyond economic and health impacts of
restoring the Everglades, how important is full Federal funding
for the Everglades to properly managing resiliency against
negative weather impacts?
Ms. Samet. As you know, the Everglades Restoration Project
is a top priority for the National Wildlife Federation. We
certainly appreciate the committee's longstanding commitment to
moving that process forward, and it does address not just
wildlife habitat, but storm risk reduction, drinking water
supply. It really covers the full panoply of issues that you
need to address for resiliency.
So I think, you know, at this point it does seem that the
best thing the Federal Government can do is to make sure it is
matching the State's commitment and providing at least $200
million each year towards a comprehensive ecosystem restoration
plan to make sure that that gets implemented.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
General Galloway and Admiral Phillips, my district
traditionally has higher levels of poverty that serve as
limiting factors to building resilience against the impact of
negative weather events.
First, those in my district have a difficult time affording
flood insurance.
Second, communities with fewer resources are less able to
engage in the kind of planning necessary to building this kind
of resiliency against negative weather events.
Do you advocate for planning of this kind to include
analysis, how poverty impacts the community's ability to plan
for and survive negative weather events?
Either one of you?
Admiral Phillips. Congresswoman, thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
We absolutely advocate the inclusion of poverty and
environmental equity and environmental justice in the
consideration of how we plan for and prepare for the impacts of
flooding on underserved communities across coastal Virginia.
It is absolutely critical. If we do not drive it in at the
Federal and State level, it will be ignored. We cannot let that
happen.
Thank you.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
General Galloway. I would just comment that FEMA and the
Texas A&M University are working hard in the Houston area after
Harvey to get the data that can make that case more strongly so
that we can show and they can show where there are shortfalls
in giving support to the people that need it the most.
Why they have the problem, the affordability issue has been
covered by reports done by the National Academy and point out
that it just does not make sense to continue the way we are in
dealing with some of these projects.
So people are doing it, but it is going to take a while for
them to go through the process and get that set up. It is
obvious it is there. We just cannot make the case of how to do
something about it immediately.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Pineda, you suggest in your testimony that any new
Federal taxpayer funding program for flood risk associated with
levees be reserved for top performers. How would you suggest
budget strapped communities meet your top performers criteria
while balancing other needs?
Should the Congress allocate additional funding for
planning and performance?
Mr. Pineda. Thank you, Congresswoman.
When levees are built, they have to be operated and
maintained, repaired and reconstructed. We have to enter into
an agreement with the Corps of Engineers to provide those
services, OMR&R, and so we have to think, when we build new
levees, we have to think of the long-term operations,
maintenance cost, and repair and reconstruction.
So that has to kind of go into the local planning process.
You know, there is a cost share for new projects, new studies.
Public Law 84-99, usually it is just the land easements and
rights-of-way.
So we want, the association and groups across the country
want, to make sure our levee system is as safe as ever, and
that means the locals taking the responsibility to
appropriately operate and maintain, repair and reconstruct, and
seek the assistance of the Federal agencies.
Thank you.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Frederica Wilson.
We will go to just two more questions, for myself and my
ranking member.
The question I had for Admiral Phillips: in your testimony
on the flood protection project for the city of Norfolk, it
highlights a concern facing many members of this committee when
the potential cost of protecting small or disadvantaged
communities may outweigh the monetized benefits.
But does the kinds of water processes meaningfully allow
the court to help communities at risk of flooding that may also
have lower property values or are located in rural areas where
a lower benefit-cost ratio may affect the viability of the
project to proceed?
And do you recommend any changes on that?
Admiral Phillips. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the
opportunity to answer that question.
We do not believe that the current WRDA process adequately
addresses the impact to underserved communities. What we found
in work that we have done with the Corps in Virginia, who are
fulfilling the standards of their obligations and following the
processes they have been directed to follow, is that
underserved communities, lowered value properties, agriculture
in particular, in addition I would say, is not appropriately
quantified or valued in the cost-benefit analysis.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, what would be your recommendations?
Admiral Phillips. I think, going back to General Galloway's
comments on adequately incorporating the principles,
requirements, and guidelines, including ecosystem opportunities
in communities, including safety and health benefits, including
volume of people protected, not just property value of that
that is protected, and then looking beyond in a more holistic
and resilient view of the community writ large and not just
tying it to flood impact on infrastructure and the value of
that infrastructure.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Galloway, have you a comment on that?
General Galloway. I could not agree more. It is something
that we do not recognize it is there, and for lots of reasons
we cannot see it because we are not allowed to or the Corps is
not allowed to bring it forward as a reason for moving this
project ahead and to consider this: just the issue of the
volume of population versus the economic value of the
population.
Mrs. Napolitano. But what effects are you already seeing on
these communities during the large flood events?
General Galloway. Well, what is interesting is that you go
back now after a big flood event, whether it is a Harvey or
those that are in Puerto Rico or other places. You can see that
no matter what you start with, if you are behind and you are
underrepresented and low income, catching up to where you were
and even moving ahead is almost impossible because there are so
many things in the insurance program, in the infrastructure you
already had, where you protected it all, in most cases it is
not.
You are starting behind, and we need something to get
people to move ahead.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, what I am learning is that FEMA is
wording in law that they can reconstruct the same as before,
whereas in Puerto Rico, they would need to build resiliency for
future events.
But they do not do that.
General Galloway. I agree with you. The idea that you want
to get back to where you were and you are then OK does not
work, and in Puerto Rico, I happen to have gone to the first
grade in Santurce in San Juan. I have great memories of that
country or that Commonwealth, and it is amazing to me that we
have not been able to help the lower income people move forward
in dealing with these infrastructure issues.
Mrs. Napolitano. We must do something about it.
I yield myself no more time, and I will recognize Miss
Gonzalez-Colon.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I am going to do a piggyback on that last question
because I do believe we need to prioritize as well those small
communities and little projects.
And one of the questions directly regarding that is the
maintenance. I mean, we do have a lot of Army Corps of
Engineers inactive projects, the lack of maintenance for many
years, waiting until the next disaster to happen, and that has
happened in Puerto Rico.
I mean, many of them were built to manage flood situations,
but because of the lack of maintenance, they may not be up to
date when the next hurricane happens because in our case, we
are in the path of all hurricanes.
So my question will be: if we should authorize in the new
legislation that small projects have their definition expanded
and the cap increased so that the community resiliency
improvement can benefit and can be covered within the limits.
I mean, what are your comments on that, Mr. Galloway and
Ms. Phillips?
General Galloway. Anything that allows attention to be paid
to people who may not even know of the challenge, this goes
back to the squeaky wheel issue.
If you do not know to complain, if you do not know what to
ask for, you are not going to get it, and so, again, anything
that allows the Corps or the people that are dealing with the
particular issues to have more flexibility is good.
Money is certainly one way to do that.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
Ms. Phillips, do you want to add something?
Admiral Phillips. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much.
I would also say that in coastal Virginia, and I will speak
specifically to the city of Norfolk where I am also a resident,
there has been a tremendous effort to focus on the
revitalization of underserved communities, and in nearly every
case, a tremendous part of their challenges is flooding,
coastal flooding, rain flooding, high-volume flooding.
And so what this does to them, and this gets to the point
of, you know, how do we keep them from falling further behind.
They are right on the edge with no safety net now. If their car
is flooded, then they cannot get to work. If they cannot get to
work, then they lose their job. If they lose their job, then
they lose their apartment. If they lose their apartment, then
they are out on the street.
And so we have this sequence of events that takes place or
could take place with a very small trigger, and the challenge
for many coastal communities now is those triggers are coming
more and more frequently because of climate impact, rising
waters, sea level rise, intense rainfall, and the degrading
infrastructure that is there to support all of these
circumstances that cannot keep up with it over time.
So our challenge is it gets to the point of resilience and
preparing for resilience. How do you look at this in a holistic
way that gives communities opportunities to plan
collaboratively to move forward?
The cost-benefit that the Corps is using does not support
that kind of view. A holistic Federal review and collaborative
process will be necessary to move these kinds of issues
forward.
And as many of the panel have said today, rooting out the
impediments to that and eliminating them and removing them will
be key to that process.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
And before yielding back, I want to just notice Mr. Gritzo.
I read about Mylan, or as we say in Puerto Rico, Mylan
Pharmaceutical, getting ahead of the hurricanes, but because of
the resiliency problems, you implemented there so the facility
would withstand the winds of the hurricane.
And I am glad that facility did not suffer, and as you
notice in your website, I think it is important. I mean, 54
percent of the economy of the island is the pharmaceutical
industry, and so having those facilities being covered by debt
resiliency programs just helps that out.
Thank you, and with that, thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am.
So far, we have had tremendous input from you, and I think
some of the Members are very glad that we had this hearing
because it sheds light on some of the things that we need to
look at.
But now I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
And I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain
open for 15 days for any additional comment and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of this hearing.
If we missed anything, please let us know.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony,
and if there are no other Members--is everything good? No more?
The committee stands adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 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
Madam Chairwoman, it is with great interest that I attend and
participate in today's hearing on concepts for the next Water Resources
Development Act: promoting resiliency of our nation's water resources
infrastructure.
This hearing will be one of several related to the formulation of a
new water resources development act (WRDA) for 2020. The next WRDA
reauthorization allows us the opportunity to address many important
issues relating to our nation's water resources, including
infrastructure.
The role of resiliency in the construction, operation and
maintenance of projects carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is an issue that we must examine.
The Dallas area falls within the Southwestern Division of the Army
Corps of Engineers. Flooding and flood control continue to be issues
that are ever-present on the minds of residents along the Trinity
River. I have held several meetings on flooding in the Dallas area.
This hearing is intended to examine how concepts of resilience are
incorporated in the planning, design, construction, and operation and
maintenance of existing projects. Improving the performance of public
infrastructure in response to major disruptive events like hurricanes,
floods and tornadoes, all of which affect the Dallas area, must be a
priority. Mitigation is necessary to avoid a repeating cycle of
destruction-reconstruction-destruction. Mitigation involves
retrofitting existing infrastructure or making new construction more
resilient.
Resiliency design and criteria should meet the best quality
standards possible. For engineered infrastructure, ``resilience'' is
the capacity to maintain a level of functionality or performance over
the design lifecycle of the infrastructure following a significant
disruptive event.
Resilient design criteria should be developed for projects. The
criteria should include and be based on two primary dimensions of
resiliency: robustness and rapidity.
Robustness is the inherent design strength of a structure and its
ability to reduce initial loss or degradation resulting from a
disruptive event like a hurricane or tornado.
Rapidity is the rate of recovering functionality to an acceptable
level of performance following a disruptive event.
The resilient design criteria should identify infrastructure type,
including initial design and retrofits; hazard type; hazard magnitude;
and the maximum acceptable time to return a structure to functionality
following a disruptive event.
The criteria should, at a minimum, apply to structures and
facilities that if they failed, would have a debilitating impact on
national or regional public safety; economic security; energy security;
and any combination of these factors.
In Dallas, the focus of our efforts with our water resources
stakeholders and groups (made up of water providers, their local
government members, the development community, and environmental
professionals) revolve around regional partnerships that promote and
collaborate on the following:

Providing adequate water and wastewater infrastructure to
meet the demands, given the rapid pace of growth and development in our
area;
Promoting water conservation and reuse by businesses and
residents, including native/drought tolerant outdoor landscaping;
Addressing maintenance needs, human behaviors that create
sewer overflows, and replacing aging infrastructure;
Developing successful asset management accounting,
tracking, and software;
Maintaining or improving water quality, including
education and outreach on human behaviors, wildlife and pets;
Reducing flooding and other hazards associated with water
flows; and
Improving or maintaining open space linkages,
availability, and habitat quality.

Madam Chairwoman, we have the opportunity to improve the
performance of public infrastructure by developing resilient design
criteria that helps us make our construction stronger and last longer.

Letter of November 18, 2019, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Portland Cement Association,
200 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 200,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2019.
The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano,
Subcommittee Chair,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Honorable Bruce Westerman,
Subcommittee Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
Dear Subcommittee Chair Napolitano and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Westerman:
Thank you for holding a hearing on ``Concepts for Next Water
Resources Development Act: Promoting Resiliency of our Nation'' focused
on steps that can be taken to improve the resiliency of water
infrastructure as the subcommittee works on a Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA). The cement industry supports the committee's
efforts to ensure the WRDA bill continues to direct the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to build more resilient infrastructure.
The Portland Cement Association (PCA) represents 91 percent of U.S.
cement production capacity with manufacturing plants in 73
congressional districts and a presence in all 50 states. PCA promotes
safety, sustainability, and innovation in all aspects of construction,
and fosters continuous improvements in cement manufacturing and
distribution.
Over the past several years, the United States has experienced an
increase in natural disasters ranging from hurricanes to flooding that
have devastated communities across the country. Last year, the United
States was impacted by fourteen individual billion dollar disaster
events, resulting in the 4th highest total damage costs ever recorded.
As we take steps to reduce the damage caused by these disasters, it is
critical to enhance the resiliency of the nation's water infrastructure
to increase its durability, longevity, disaster resistance, and safety.
Using more resilient building materials offers environmental advantages
by conserving resources needed for the production of replacement
materials, and by lessening waste, and economic advantages by reducing
costs associated with repairs or replacements.
Passage of WRDA provides an opportunity to place greater focus on
building resilient water infrastructure across the country. As water
infrastructure is built or repaired, the cement industry supports
taking steps to ensure improved durability to the nation's water
infrastructure to better take into account the changing climate.
Concrete is a critical building material to contribute to improved
resiliency.
Additionally, passage of WRDA next year is important for continuing
the two-year cycle of passing water infrastructure authorizations and
advancing new Army Corps of Engineers projects. Additionally, passage
of WRDA is important to improving the nation's navigational and flood
protection infrastructure. Across the country there are approximately
100,000 miles of levees with 25,000 miles of inland and intercoastal
waterways. Annually, the cement industry ship approximately 35 percent
of our product from plants to terminals by barge demonstrating these
systems are vital for American commerce.
We thank you again for holding a hearing focused on improving the
resiliency of water infrastructure. We look forward to working with you
to pass a WRDA bill next year.
Sincerely,
Sean O'Neill,
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

Appendix

----------

Question 1. How can we improve the Corps' project delivery process?
Answer:
a. A funding policy that doles out project funds on an annual
basis makes it almost impossible to act efficiently in planning or
construction and during those operations to avoid rising costs.
Policies that create boundaries along agencies or between agencies or
hinder cooperative efforts among agencies make little sense.
Legislation that would encourage USACE, when it identifies means to
cooperatively work with other agencies in the interest of time or
economics to seek and obtain rapid-turnaround approval from
Congressional committee of such multi-agency work should be considered.
Also, during feasibility studies the USACE should be encouraged to seek
out logical opportunities frog such partnerships and cooperate efforts.
An action taken by the T&I committee in the 2018 WRDA required review
of a provision in the law that limits USACE's authority to deal with
flood situations in urban areas where the flow is under 800 cubic feet
/second. This limitation illustrates the potential for restriction
removals to assist agencies in working together to accelerate project
execution.
b. Continuing reliance primarily on economic justification of
projects makes it difficult for those in rural and low-income areas to
justify projects that would give them considerable social and
conceivably health benefits. The recent National Academies studies of
affordability of flood insurance gives a very clear picture of the
differential level of flood protection under various economic
situations and strong reason to consider all factors in project
justification. Without removal of Congressional restrictions on USACE
use of the federal Principles, Requirements and Guidelines it will be
unlikely that projects in support of low-income population will move
quickly through the planning process. This will result not only in
delays to these projects but may also result in slowdown of projects
that have a higher economic utility.
c. 38 years ago, I, as a Consultant to the Water Resources Council
was asked by the Chair of the Council to examine the reasons behind the
extremely long time required then to move a federal water resources
development project of the USACE, BOR, USDA from inception to
completion. The results of this review were provided to the Chair of
the Water Resources Council, herds of the concerned agencies, and the
Chairs of the relevant Congressional Committees. In the years
following, some progress was made in addressing the issues identified,
however, I believe that many of the roadblocks to speeding up project
delivery remain and could be addressed. Even though somewhat `ancient,'
I am providing the Committee a copy of the report, Impediments in the
Process for Development of Federal Water Resource Projects, as part of
my answer to this question.
[Editor's note: The 114-page report entitled ``Impediments in the
Process for Development of Federal Water Resource Projects: Why All the
Delay and What Can We Do About It?'' is retained in committee files.]

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Ann C. Phillips, Rear Admiral,
U.S. Navy (Ret.), Special Assistant to the Governor for Coastal
Adaptation and Protection, Commonwealth of Virginia

Question 1. Will the Commonwealth carry out the $115 million
natural disaster resiliency competition grant within the authorized
timeline or do you anticipate needing an extension?
Question 1.a. If an extension is needed, could you please help the
Committee to understand what reforms may be needed to expedite project
development and delivery for resiliency projects?
Answer. Congressman Graves, Thank you for the opportunity to
testify and to answer Questions for the Record. The Commonwealth of
Virginia and the City of Norfolk are diligently working together in
order to carry out the Virginia Natural Disaster Response Competition
grant within the authorized timeline. The Commonwealth and city do not
anticipate the need for an extension to meet the national objectives at
this time, but will continue to monitor the timeline as the project
progresses into full implementation.

Question 2. How can we improve the Corps' project delivery process?
Answer. Virginia values its relationship with the US Army Corps of
Engineers and their ongoing work with State agencies and localities.
There is, however, an urgent need to align Corps planning standards,
Principles and Guidelines, Feasibility Study, and benefit-cost analysis
processes to better serve Coastal States and their communities dealing
with rising waters and recurrent flooding.
prioritize agency missions and funding alignment
The three primary missions of the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Civil Works Division, Navigation, Environmental Restoration and
Flood Control, often work against each other, as navigation projects
are a nearer term priority, often overshadowing costlier and longer-
term flood control requirements. This results in navigation projects
receiving funding at the expense of flood control, which further delays
critical flood and water infrastructure projects. Navigation projects
should be evaluated, and funded, separately from flood control
projects. Navigation projects also need a comprehensive evaluation
process to consider and determine potential for adverse effects,
including flooding or negative impact to environmental restoration. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act provide
some protections in this regard; those must be maintained, and
strengthened.
fundamental review of usace principles, requirements and guidelines--
and benefit/cost analysis processes:
The current BCA process deserves fundamental reconsideration,
including (as previously stated) strong environmental review and NEPA
process, quantification of green and natural and nature-based (NNBF)
infrastructure benefits, and consideration of social and environmental
equity and long-term regional climate adaptation solutions, given what
we now know about costs and the longer-term nature of climate change as
a threat.
The 2007 Water Resources Development Act directed the Secretary of
the Army to revise Principles and Guidelines for the Corps, which was
completed and finalized in 2013, but not fully implemented.\1\ \2\ \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``Updated Principles,
Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources
Implementation Studies,'' The White House, accessed December 19, 2019,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/5321.
\2\ ``Water Resources Development Act of 2007,'' Pub. L. No. 110-
114, Sec. 2031, 33 USC (2007), https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/
publ114/PLAW-110publ114.pdf.
\3\ ``DRAFT Water Resources Policies and Authorities IMPLEMENTATION
OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER
13690, ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD AND A
PROCESS FOR FURTHER SOLICITING AND CONSIDERING STAKEHOLDER INPUT,''
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EC 1165-2-217 (DRAFT 9 DEC 2016) (US Army Corp
of Engineers, December 9, 2016), https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/
Portals/70/docs/frmp/eo11988/EO11988EC_
Draft12Dec16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, there remains a need to better balance economic,
social and environmental goals and impacts across the process, and to
include regional impact, as well as impact to federal facilities and in
particular DOD facilities in the watersheds evaluated by the Corps,
where applicable. Without this broader analytical perspective,
preferred alternatives skew to grey/hardened solutions, with value
driven by the value and content of structures protected, and with
little to no quantified consideration of social, environmental, or
regional economic long-term benefit or value.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Risk Assessment for Flood Risk Management Studies,'' Engineer
Regulation (Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, July 17,
2017), https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/
EngineerRegulations/ER_1105-2-101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
prioritization of projects
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a $96 billion backlog
of authorized but unconstructed projects, while annual appropriations
for the USACE Construction account under Energy and Water Development
appropriations bills have averaged $2 billion in recent years. Congress
has also limited the number of new studies and construction projects
initiated with annual discretionary appropriations, with a limit of
five new construction starts using FY2019 appropriations.\5\ Since only
a few construction projects are funded each fiscal year, numerous
projects authorized by previous Congresses remain backlogged. This
problem has worsened in recent decades as Congress has authorized
construction of new projects at a rate that exceeds USACE's annual
construction appropriations. The Corps must evaluate the complete list
of back-logged projects for currency and recommend to Congress which
projects are not addressing current or future flooding needs, are
otherwise unnecessary, or do not address resilience, pre-disaster
mitigation, or infrastructure and flood plain actions. Congress must
instruct the Corps to prioritize projects that provide the greatest
flood risk reduction and assist regions with the greatest economic
needs. This aggregation and prioritization will help reduce overlap in
project and study areas and reduce gaps along jurisdictional lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Army Corps of Engineers Annual and Supplemental
Appropriations: Issues for Congress'' (Congressional Research Service,
October 2018), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the limits placed on the Corps for new project starts, and
Corps funding limitations, Congress should also ensure the Corps has a
smooth process to accept and validate commercial and academic study
work as the basis for, or in place of, a feasibility study. (For
example, Virginia Beach's own Back Bay study and storm water study
discussed in my testimony).
emphasize green infrastructure, and develop expanded benefit/cost
analysis that quantifies green infrastructure and natural and nature-
based feature (nnbf) benefits, and the needs of underserved communities
Again, the Corps must move from a grey infrastructure/ hardscape
focus to one that emphasizes green infrastructure and natural and
nature-based features and economic and social benefits wherever
feasible. The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
has plenty of capacity to address such infrastructure through its
Engineering with Green Infrastructure Initiative, however, its work is
rarely considered or included in the Coastal Storm Risk Management
process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``EWN--Dr. Todd Bridges--Bio,'' 3, accessed November 12, 2019,
https://ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/bios/bio_bridges_todd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green infrastructure and NNBF's buy time, and in many
circumstances, are more effective, and more cost-effective through
reducing the amount of water overall, and by absorbing, capturing and
slowing down run-off and floodwaters while providing ecosystem services
and co-benefits to communities. This is particularly valuable in the
context of providing services to underserved communities, and ensuring
environmental equity across communities.
In summary, the Corps' project delivery process can be improved by
a fundamental review of Principles and Requirements--and by
implementing the Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in
Water Resources guidelines completed in March 2013.\7\ It can be
further strengthened by a fundamental review of BCA processes, by
including strong environmental review, quantification of green and NNBF
infrastructure benefits, consideration of environmental equity, and
regional economic benefits. Given what we now know about costs and the
longer-term nature of climate change as a threat--we have no time or
federal dollars to waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Council on Environmental Quality, ``Updated Principles,
Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources
Implementation Studies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Ricardo S. Pineda, P.E.,
C.F.M., Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Supervising
Water Resources Engineer, California Department of Water Resources,
Division of Flood Management, on behalf of the Association of State
Floodplain Managers

Question 1. What do you see as the role of existing infrastructure
in meeting future challenges and meeting future needs?
Answer. Existing flood infrastructure includes, but is not limited
to, urban drainage infrastructure including pumping plants, dams that
provide dedicated flood storage and are controlled by USACE Water
Control Manuals, and levees, floodwalls and bypasses. To meet future
challenges due to larger flood events due to climate change (including
hydrologic changes, changes in sea levels, and other changes within
watersheds), the existing infrastructure needs to be assessed by
operation entities to determine the level of flood protection the
facilities or project works currently provide, and what levels of flood
protection would likely be provided under expected future conditions.
The infrastructure also needs to be operated and maintained to the
highest standards possible. Operating entities and the communities they
serve need to assess new protection standards and design hydrology they
need and intend to achieve to reflect increased flood flows due to the
expected future conditions. ASFPM recommends that, at a minimum, future
conditions which extend for the full useful life of facilities or
project designs must be considered.
A gap analysis should be performed and studies undertaken to
determine how and where the existing infrastructure should be improved
to protect communities against larger and more frequent floods. Special
attention should be paid to aging dams with dedicated flood control
storage to examine the need for expanded outlet works, including the
potential for new auxiliary spillways or modified spillways. Urban
drainage systems need to be examined for the potential of additional
storm water storage, and separating storm water drainage from sewage
flows in existing combined storm and sewer water systems. Existing
levee systems can be raised and strengthened via levee lifts,
floodwalls, seepage cutoff walls and stability berms, and consideration
should be made of levee setbacks to increase flow conveyance capacity,
reduce erosion, improve groundwater recharge, and to provide open space
for habitat restoration. Improvements and establishment of new
floodways or expanded floodways which divert floodwaters from rivers
need to be considered. To complement improvements to the existing flood
infrastructure, communities should adopt a portfolio approach to flood
risk reduction that includes risk-informed land use restrictions,
increased purchase of NFIP flood insurance, and flood mitigation,
including buyouts and structure elevation, where appropriate.
Example projects of note along these lines:

Corps' SELA Project (Southeast Louisiana Urban Drainage
Project). This project is improving storm water drainage in the New
Orleans for protection against the 10-year rainfall event.
Providing Urban Level of Flood Protection (200-year
protection) for California urban communities along the Sacramento and
San Joaquin River Systems. Existing federal levees protecting urban
areas of Yuba City, Sacramento, West Sacramento, Stockton, Lathrop and
Manteca are being improved or planned to be improved to a 200-year
level of flood protection. These projects have been funded by the State
of California, regional flood control agencies, and some funding from
the USACE through a variety of partnerships. They include the setback
of federal levees and the planned widening of the Sacramento Weir,
which diverts floodwaters into a flood bypass. The projects have been
planned to provide multiple public benefits.
Folsom Dam modifications. A new emergency spillway at
Folsom Dam located upstream of Sacramento will allow the dam to safely
pass the updated ``probable maximum flood'' and make larger reservoir
releases with the reservoir at lower water levels to support Flood
Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) and maintain flood flows in the
American River below the maximum flow capacity. This project is
referred to as the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project was led by the
USACE and supported by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the State of
California, and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. The USACE
Water Control Manual was updated to reflect the updated probable
maximum flood and forecast informed reservoir operations.
Existing dams that provide dedicated flood control
storage should be examined for feasible improvements to their outlet
works and spillways and updates to their USACE Water Control manuals to
ensure that they can and will function at an optimum level for the 21st
Century.

Question 2. How do you see this playing out in California,
especially with the need to balance water supply for communities?
Answer. In California, post-Hurricane Katrina and after a Five-year
Drought, the voters have been willing to approve multiple state bonds
to fund flood risk reduction infrastructure and regional water supply
projects. These funds have been used to improve flood protection along
the existing Sacramento and San Joaquin Flood Control System to a 200-
year level of flood protection for six urban areas. The California
Department of Water Resources and the California Central Valley Flood
Protection Board have sought and continue seeking to maximize federal
participation in each of our structural flood protection projects. Many
urban flood protection projects have been started prior to the Corps'
beginning construction and were classified as ``Early Implementation--
``No Regrets'' '' projects. Some of the State-funded projects focused
on levee repairs that had been waiting for Corps repairs for many years
and were delayed in part due to federal environmental permitting. Two
existing federal dams have been improved to provide a greater level of
flood protection through improvements of an existing floodwater
spillway in one and the construction of a new spillway and Water
Control Manual in another. Flood Control and seismic improvements are
also being designed for a third dam.
While California implements with its federal and local partners
much needed improvements to its structural flood risk reduction system,
it is has also maintained an active and essential floodplain management
program, including carrying out FEMA NFIP mapping and extensive
development of digital terrain models, and hydrologic and hydraulic
studies that can be used by local, state, tribal, and federal partners.
California maintains an active flood forecasting operation in
cooperation with NOAA, reservoir operations units who've helped develop
forecast-coordinated operations procedures and forecast-informed
reservoir operations, and flood emergency response teams.
None of California's flood risk reduction actions are seen as
incompatible with existing water supply infrastructure; in fact, they
are complimentary. Of course, each new flood risk reduction project
needs to be evaluated for all its potential impacts on other property
and the environment, including water supply impacts. California flood
risk reduction project cost-sharing advocates for projects that provide
multiple benefits, including environmental benefits, open-space/
recreation, and floodwater-managed aquifer recharge, when possible.
The California Water Plan Update 2018 identifies a new water supply
management strategy, referred to as ``FloodMAR,'' which advocates the
use of floodwater for managed aquifer/groundwater recharge. Groundwater
banks, large and small, are in place and under development in the South
San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Flood waters are being
diverted as much as possible to the groundwater banks as a source for
groundwater replenishment.
The bottom line is, California's water infrastructure is extensive
and complex and incrementally is being improved for the challenges we
anticipate in the 21st Century. A key policy is to strive to ensure
each project provides multiple benefits and improves/supports regional
water management at the local level. The California Department of Water
Resources works closely with its federal and local partners, including,
but not limited to, the USACE, USBR, FEMA, USGS, NRCS, NOAA, NMFS and
USFWS, to ensure water policy and environmental alignment resulting in
well-coordinated projects to meet the needs of our state based on a
changing climate.

Question 3. What steps can the Corps take under existing
authorities to factor resiliency into their projects, and what are the
gaps with these authorities?
Answer. These are a series of ASFPM recommendations for both
actions under existing authorities and where authority gaps may exist
to help the Corps of Engineers make progress toward building toward
resilient communities and infrastructure:

We need to have clearer direction and clear authorities
and procedures to update Corps (and, where appropriate, USBR)
reservoirs and their operations with dedicated federal flood control
storage that should be reflected in regularly updated Corps of
Engineers' Water Control Manuals.
We must also leverage nature-based approaches, natural
infrastructure design features and green infrastructure. This begins
with removing every single barrier in statute and policy so that we
automatically consider these approaches in part or in whole, in each
situation where decisions must be made regarding the current and future
resiliency of the water resources and their affected environments
(i.e., mandate that nature-based approaches and natural infrastructure
approaches be considered in conjunction with P.L. 84-99 repair and
rehabilitation projects and in all flood risk reduction project
feasibility or project modification studies).
We should increase and broaden the implementation of the
Corps of Engineers' Engineering With Nature Initiative.
In ASFPM's testimony we have emphasized that Congress and
the USACE should provide a significantly greater level of water
resources management and flood damage reduction technical assistance
through the Planning Assistance to States Program, the Floodplain
Management Services Program, and the Silver Jackets program, or
possibly a new, expanded continuing technical assistance authority or
authorities. Currently, only a handful of Corps' District Offices
regularly utilize these technical assistance authorities, partly
because the scale of funding is so limited that it has not even been an
option for many districts. The Corps needs a substantial initiative to
expand its technical assistance to communities, states, and tribes,
where the end results may not be new large Corps civil works projects,
but in order to help communities and states develop some of their own
projects to address flooding problems, with potential assistance from
multiple federal, state, local and other sources contributing.
Historically, the USACE produced Flood Information Studies and these
studies were used by communities as a basis to develop alternatives for
flood risk reduction, including the implementation of floodplain
management measures and nonstructural flood risk reduction. Such
assistance should be brought back in one form or another with greater
focus on longer-term resiliency. In addition we urge that cost-sharing
policies be harmonized and updated so as not to bias against utilizing
nonstructural, nature-based, or natural infrastructure approaches where
these approaches may make the greatest overall sense.
We would also urge adoption of the Principles,
Requirements, and Guidelines, and would urge movement toward greater
identification of the multiple benefits associated with wise floodplain
management and nonstructural approaches to flood risk reduction, as
directed in WRDA 2007, Sec. 3021. We also would strongly support
adoption of a National Economic Resilience Standard in planning for
future flood risk reduction and improved floodplain management. This
could be greatly assisted by implementation of the previously adopted
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, including the requirement that
new critical infrastructure be protected against at least the 500-year
flood event. In addition, we would support completion of the WRDA 2007,
Sec. 3022 Water Resources Priorities study of flood risk, which would
provide the Corps and Congress with critical information evaluating
risks, costs, and options to address future resiliency challenges and
opportunities. The study was begun, but never completed by the Corps.
ASFPM also urges greater cooperation between FEMA and the
USACE on flood risk assessment, including large-scale, full-risk
mapping. FEMA should consult with the USACE Hydrologic Engineering
Center on the methodology and potential to carry out large-scale, full-
risk mapping across the nation for advisory flood risk information.
WRDA 2016 and 2018 both included direction for greater
inclusion of nonstructural measures in project plan formulation, yet
the Corps of Engineers WRDA guidance has thus far failed to implement
and institutionalize this direction. We urge the Committee to continue
considering ways to bring such planning into all flood risk management
studies, and we would further urge the Committee to follow up and
insist on completion of the WRDA 2014 authorized Sec. 3029 studies
identifying data and program effectiveness in P.L. 84-99, and biases
against and impediments to utilization of nonstructural approaches to
flood risk reduction. An area for potential legislative focus for WRDA
2020 could be improved coordination with other federal agencies to
adopt a flood risk reduction portfolio that maximizes flood risk
reduction utilizing nonstructural measures in some cases to be carried
out or led by other federal agencies.
As ASFPM has emphasized in our oral and written testimony
to the Committee, we urge the Committee and Congress to authorize and
carry out a Missouri River System Study that will examine the
management and operation of the 6 Corps Dams on the mainstem of the
Missouri River and the Missouri River federal and nonfederal levee
system, in light of the long and growing history of repetitive levee
breaches and failures, pinch points and road and bridge closings and
repairs, rural and urban flood damages, and repetitive flooding where
there are clear needs for greater floodwater conveyance than is now
available in large flood events, going into the future. Besides the
critical importance of such a study in Midwest states where enormous
losses have already been experienced, and major challenges and costs
for repairs and disaster damages and assistance will be faced for years
to come, ASFPM believes such a general system review authority is
needed for the Corps to identify and promote water resources community
and infrastructure resiliency into the 21st Century.
We urge the Committee to support adoption and utilization
of the ANSI 2510 Standard for Flood barriers and to improve and upgrade
the capability of barrier testing facilities at the Corps' ERDC
facility. This was further discussed in our written testimony.
We also would urge adopting standards to Protect Urban
Areas to a level at least equal to the `Standard Project Flood' (this
was a recommendation of the Galloway Committee report from 1994, and we
believe makes even greater sense in light of current experience).
Finally, I reemphasize our view at ASFPM that the
Committee should ensure the Corps has authority to consider building
acquisition/relocation and utilization of levee setbacks and/or
realignment as alternatives in all flood loss reduction programs. These
are and will be critically important tools for infrastructure and
community resiliency going into the future, but they are currently far
under-utilized approaches that could save the U.S. taxpayers huge sums
going into the future.

Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Ricardo S. Pineda, P.E., C.F.M.,
Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Supervising Water
Resources Engineer, California Department of Water Resources, Division
of Flood Management, on behalf of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers

Question 1. How can we improve the Corps' project delivery process?
Answer. Recognizing that one of the critical path actions in
project delivery is funding: the Corps' needs to think about taking a
fundamentally different approach to project formulation and technical
assistance. Dr Gritzo who also testified during the hearing talked
about FM Global model where FM Global engineers provide technical
assistance to their insured clients--through risk assessments and
identification of flood loss reduction alternatives. Then the business
implements the mitigation. What would happen if the Corps took a more
technical assistance-oriented approach with a foundational
understanding that they may, or may not, be the entity actually funding
and constructing the project, engage the community with a solution or
range of solutions that could be implemented by the community,
regardless of the Corps' participation?
In so many cases, just by having feasible alternatives presented,
communities can proceed with their own project, if it doesn't appear a
Corps project will be funded by Congress. Isn't the goal to get
protection in communities as quickly as possible? Who cares who is
funding it? States and communities will step up and ASFPM has seen
examples of this occur. The current model and expectation that the
Corps will study, design, and build a project just doesn't line up with
reality and the $100+ billion backlog of authorized, but unconstructed
projects that exists. Not every USACE study needs to recommend an
expensive structure-based project that is difficult to economically
justify, pay for, and maintain. In a more flexible approach (which
might also include looking at smaller flooding issues), the Corps could
serve far more at-risk residents, communities, and businesses of our
nation than they do now.

Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Louis A. Gritzo, Ph.D., Vice
President of Research, FM Global

Question 1. How can we improve the Corps' project delivery process?
Answer. Here, respectfully, are our suggestions:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an essential partner to
residents and businesses in communities affected by flood. We at FM
Global, one of the world's largest commercial property insurers,
recommend the following three-pronged approach to improving the Corps'
project delivery process as it relates to protecting the value of
companies doing business in the U.S.:

1. Reprioritization and allocation of funds: Federal
appropriations for post-disaster recovery and pre-disaster risk
mitigation should, to the extent possible, be thought of as a single
combined resource. All non-emergency projects should be objectively
analyzed, evaluated under current and expected future conditions,
prioritized accordingly and funded on a comprehensive cost/benefit
basis. Prioritization should be informed by the facts that it's far
more cost-effective to prevent a flood loss than rebuild or recover
afterwards.
Funding priorities should also consider the value of flood-
related loss prevention not merely in terms of property value, but
rather in terms of the overall contribution to a community's economy
and quality of life.
2. Evaluate levee alternatives: Although levees are a proven
defense against flooding, they are a somewhat blunt one. FM Global
encourages the study and use of alternative flood mitigation
approaches, including but not limited to expanded wetlands, permeable
landscapes, and inland waterways. As part of this work, the Army Corps
should deploy state-of-the-art hydrological models and implement
technically sound standards for design, inspection, and maintenance
developed through public-private-academic partnerships.
3. Strengthen research and testing capabilities: Implementing the
aforementioned recommendations to improve decision-making and project
delivery will require the Corps to expand its engineering services and
support them with a strengthened research and testing capability,
presumably at its U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The ERDC has been a valuable partner
in flood mitigation efforts and needs to be expanded and updated to
meet evolving challenges. Of particular importance is providing
laboratory improvements that enable certification testing of temporary
flood barrier solutions to address higher floodwaters beyond the lab's
current three-foot limit. Tested and certified temporary barriers
provide solutions that protect structures from damage when permanent
flood protection measures are not possible, or during times of
excessive local precipitation.

In summary, we urge improving the Corps project delivery through:

the reprioritization and allocation of federal flood
mitigation and recovery funds,
a comprehensive evaluation of levee alternatives, and
stronger research and testing capabilities at the ERDC.

We hope these recommendations are helpful. Thank you again for your
consideration. FM Global is eager to continue this dialogue for the
benefit of American communities facing the growing and grave threat of
flood loss.

Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Melissa Samet, Senior Water
Resources Counsel, National Wildlife Federation

Question 1. How can we improve the Corps' project delivery process?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to share the National
Wildlife Federation's views on improving the Corps' project delivery
process. At the outset we wish to stress that efforts to improve the
project delivery process should focus as much on producing more
effective and ecologically sound water resources projects as it does on
reducing the amount of time it takes to plan and construct those
projects.
To produce more effective and ecologically sound projects, the
Corps must fully account for the vital importance of the nation's
rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands. These natural
infrastructure systems are essential for resilient communities,
resilient populations of fish and wildlife, and a vibrant outdoor
economy. The Corps should take full advantage of these natural systems
to help absorb floodwaters and buffer communities, improve the
effectiveness and resilience of levees and other structural water
resources infrastructure, and reduce the need for new structural flood
and storm damage reduction projects.
The Corps' project delivery process has not been--and will not be--
improved by eliminating planning steps; curtailing, diminishing, or
undermining robust review under the National Environmental Policy Act;
or imposing arbitrary time limits on project planning and environmental
review. We strongly urge Congress and the Administration to refrain
from advancing any such changes.
To help produce more effective and ecologically sound projects and
improve the Corps' project delivery process, the National Wildlife
Federation recommends the following changes.
First, the Corps' planning process should be restructured to
promote the development of innovative, ecologically sustainable
solutions to water resources problems. Corps planning should begin with
a comprehensive assessment of the root causes of the underlying
problem. The Corps should then search for the most ecologically
sustainable avenues for addressing those root causes. All projects
should be designed to work with, and maintain, the integrity of natural
systems (including a rivers' natural instream flow) to the maximum
extent possible. Far too often, the Corps' current planning process is
focused on attempting to justify pre-determined, structural solutions
that often increase flooding in other locations and destroy vital
wetlands that protect communities and allow wildlife to thrive.
Project delivery for complex Corps projects can be improved by
active coordination across federal agencies and this type of
coordination should be encouraged. Such coordination can assist in
efficiently sequencing appropriate reviews and in anticipating and
working to resolve issues that may arise before they result in delay.
The Corps must also meaningfully account for technical comments
provided by other federal agencies, state agencies, independent
experts, independent external peer review panels, and the public. The
Corps often ignores many of the recommendations provided by others,
even when they are highly informed and detailed. Using the information
provided by others in a meaningful way would improve the quality of
Corps projects (including in some cases, driving fundamental changes to
the suite of alternatives being considered) and the timeliness of
project delivery.
To help implement these needed changes, Congress should:

Second, Congress should modernize the criteria used by the Corps to
calculate project benefits and costs, including by requiring the Corps
to account for increased ecosystem services as a project benefit and
lost ecosystem services as a project cost. Fully accounting for costs
and benefits is critical for making effective decisions regarding the
planning, construction, budgeting, prioritization, and authorization of
Corps projects to increase resilience. Ecosystem services are the
direct and indirect contributions that ecosystems provide to our well-
being, including benefits like flood control, water purification, and
habitat for wildlife.
Third, Congress should increase the Corps' capacity to improve the
resilience of the nation's water resources infrastructure by
establishing a Directorate of Ecological Services within the Office of
the Chief of Engineers. This Directorate should be tasked with ensuring
that the Corps takes full advantage of existing programs, authorities,
and operations to use natural systems to protect communities from
floods, minimize expenditures for emergency response and rebuilding,
improve wildlife habitat, and strengthen the outdoor-based economy.
This Directorate should have significant budgeting authority. Corps
planning is hampered by an organizational structure that prevents the
agency from creating and taking advantage of critical opportunities to
effectively utilize the extensive public safety and wildlife benefits
provided by healthy natural systems.
Fourth, Congress should direct the Corps to develop and apply
modern planning tools, including particularly modern hydrologic models
that allow for 21st Century project planning, and ensure adequate
funding to support this effort. The Corps should work closely with the
academic community in developing new models. Far too many Corps models
are outdated relics from the past, and far too many Corps projects rely
on models and management plans that are decades old and simply cannot
account for modern conditions. Updated models would greatly facilitate
improvement of the Corps' project delivery process.
Fifth, Congress should carefully consider changes to the Corps'
budgeting process. The long-standing practice of funding Corps staff
through project-specific appropriations creates a perverse incentive
to: drag-out project planning and project delivery; plan and recommend
larger and costlier projects; and continue the status quo approach to
managing navigation and other projects instead of looking for new, more
innovative and ecologically sound approaches. All of these types of
actions are rewarded with more funding under the Corps' current
budgeting process.

Questions from Hon. Bruce Westerman to Julie A. Ufner, President,
National Waterways Conference

Question 1. During the hearing, you mentioned the multiple benefits
that can be accrued from Corps civil works projects, but you've also
pointed out the challenges in incorporating these benefits, including
natural infrastructure, into the traditional planning model. What
recommendations do you have to address these concerns?
Answer. Ranking Member Westerman, thank you for your question. The
members of the National Waterways Conference (NWC) include non-federal
sponsors who have significant financial responsibilities for water
resource projects and are accountable to the residents who the projects
benefit and protect. The Corps' planning program provides a structured
approach to the formulation of projects responsive to local, state and
national needs, premised upon the project's contribution to national
economic development while protecting the environment. In addition to
the complex, and often lengthy internal review process, Corps studies
are also subject to extensive external reviews, including under NEPA.
It is important to note that the Corps' study process is grounded upon
solving problems raised at the local or basin-wide level, whether
combatting a flooding issue or ensuring a competitive navigation
channel.
As non-federal sponsors seek to incorporate additional benefits in
projects, the planning framework must provide for the flexibility to
include those additional benefits. No doubt, there may be opportunities
where multiple benefits--and a willing non-federal partner--will lead
to a higher return on investment. An example below will further explain
this concept. However, imposing requirements on a non-federal sponsor
does not reflect the reality of project development, and could result
in a waste of scarce resources. As this committee knows too well, we
live in a resource-constrained environment, with significantly more
demand for important water resource projects than funding available. As
such, the process to modify and update the program must be open and
transparent, accounting for the feedback and expertise from nonfederal
sponsors, while not imposing unwanted burdens and obligations.
In my testimony, I referenced an example from the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) as illustrative of the current constraints
on the planning process and how additional benefits may be
incorporated. SAFCA was formed in 1989 to address the Sacramento area's
vulnerability to catastrophic flooding. An integral part of the system,
the Yolo Bypass, encompasses 5,900 acres and extends 41 miles through
both urban centers and one of the most productive farmlands in the
world. Constructed by the Corps as a single-purpose flood control
facility, the entire three-mile-wide bypass is in a floodplain and is
75 percent privately owned. During the non-flood season, most of the
bypass is used as farmland, such as rice farming, which contributes to
the nation's agriculture output. But during rainy seasons, SAFCA has
flood easement rights to the land.
To address concerns with endangered species, recently SAFCA
proposed an ecosystem restoration plan that allowed salmon to grow on
the fallowed bypass farmland during flood season, which would
complement the bypass's use as a flood control facility. Numerous
studies have shown that salmon and other threatened and endangered
species grow eight to ten times larger on bypass lands than on the main
stem of the river. However, under the current Corps processes, the plan
was not allowed since Corps administrative policy requires all bypass
land to be purchased in a fee title. Since the cost to purchase the fee
titles is much greater than the Corps' assigned benefits to raise the
endangered fish, this made the benefits unattainable. So, while it was
acceptable for the Corps to claim a primary flood control benefit using
the easement, a secondary ecosystem benefit was not acceptable based on
internal Corps decisions.
Building upon the lessons learned from this example, we would
recommend that the current Corps process for examining multiple benefit
projects be reassessed, as well as internal decision-making that
prevents the Corps from crediting other multipurpose benefits within
projects. One approach would be to not require a fee title to claim
ecosystem benefits. Instead, those additional benefits could be treated
similar to the way current obligations for mitigation sites and the
operations and maintenance are handled.
We would recommend a rigorous, disciplined, scientific-based
examination of the issue such that water resource planners have
additional tools at their disposal to incorporate a full array of
feasible alternatives, satisfying the basic objectives of economics,
environmental protection, regional development and social well-being,
which by definition can address resilience concerns at the local level.
We would also recommend that in the next WRDA, Congress authorizes
a study by the National Academy of Sciences. Typically, as part of such
studies, the Academy's Water Science and Technology Board holds open
meetings and invites non-federal sponsors to offer their views for
consideration in the final study. The inclusion of the views of the
non-federal sponsors, who are responsible for significant financial
commitments for construction and maintenance, is imperative to the
integrity of this process.

Question 2. As you mentioned in your testimony, the Corps is still
operating on cost-benefit principles from 1983, and their most-recent
update was met with widespread resistance. Additionally, in WRDA 2018,
Congress called on the Corps to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to review the Corps' economic principles and analytical
methodologies when evaluating water resources projects. Central to the
concerns we heard during the hearing is how the Corps must do better to
quantify multiple project benefits, including establishing the value of
nature-based alternatives, as well as how to quantify resilience.
Question 2.a. As we look towards WRDA 2020, how can we further
lean on the Corps to properly update these principles and guidelines?
Question 2.b. Additionally, how do you recommend that the Corps
properly update the Principles and Guidelines?
Answer (2.a. and 2.b.). There has been an increased call for the
use of nature-based and natural infrastructure alternatives to be
included in the planning process. To be sure, the process should
include consideration of a full array of feasible alternatives. Federal
investment decisions are grounded upon the net economic benefits to the
nation, using a cost-benefit analysis, as set forth in the 1983
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) which governs project planning and
development.
WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114) included a requirement for the Corps to
consider how they interface with the P&G. The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) took over the process that had been started by the Corps
and eventually issued two documents--the Principles and Requirements
and the Implementing Guidelines (collectively referred to as the PR&G).
NWC has been a vocal critic of the attempted update. As we described in
the testimony, those products are fundamentally flawed. They are
undisciplined, and lack any degree of consistency and predictability
needed for the development of proposals to guide federal investment
decisions.
A key area of concern is the inability to quantify multiple project
benefits, including establishing the value of nature-based alternatives
in that analysis. We would urge the Committee to not simply direct the
Corps to dust off the PR&G, but instead to take a fresh look at this
issue.
We are encouraged by work currently ongoing at the Corps' Engineer
Research and Development Center to develop methods for evaluating and
quantifying benefits beyond the scope of the traditional planning
model, including natural and nature-based infrastructure. When such
information is developed to the point that public input is appropriate,
we would urge the Corps to solicit stakeholder input, including
providing the opportunity for notice and comment. This input will be
critically important to discern what is workable and feasible on the
ground.

Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Julie A. Ufner, President, National
Waterways Conference

Question 1. How can we improve the Corps' project delivery process?
Answer. Thank you for your question Congressman Graves. Congress
has already started this process when they enacted numerous changes in
WRRDA 2014, WRDA 2016 and WRDA 2018, which the Corps is working to
implement. Concurrently, the Corps has also been focusing on
streamlining its project delivery process through its ``revolutionize
civil works'' initiative. We are encouraged by the progress we have
seen this far, including adopting milestones for the feasibility
process, integrated review of planning documents, and the establishment
of a single policy and legal team for planning studies or budget
decisions, along with the implementation of risk-informed decision-
making. Additionally, the Corps has moved to better incorporate the
input and expertise of non-federal project sponsors and partners.
Furthermore, the Corps is considering alternative funding and financing
opportunities, which opens up more opportunities for non-federal
sponsors and their communities to move forward with projects. But, as
with any complex project, this is an ongoing process, and it is going
to take time and learned experience to determine which changes work on
the ground. To that end, we would urge caution before enacting further
legislative directives--the new approaches underway ought to be given a
chance to work before we work to change them.
At the end of the day, we all want the same thing--strong,
resilient and affordable infrastructure that can protect residents and
businesses as well as the environment and economy--while making sound
fiscal decisions. We look forward to working with you, Congress and the
Corps to achieve these goals.

[all]