[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                          FROM GRAY TO GREEN:
                          ADVANCING THE SCIENCE
                     OF NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 2, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-46

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

                                     
                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov  
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
46-871 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                      Subcommittee on Environment

              HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma,
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                   Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida  


















                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             March 2, 2022

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     7
    Written Statement............................................     8

Statement by Representative Stephanie I. Bice, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     9
    Written Statement............................................    11

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    11

Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    12

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Steven Thur, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    13
    Written Statement............................................    16

Dr. Sherry Hunt, Supervisory Civil Engineer, Agriculture Research 
  Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Oral Statement...............................................    25
    Written Statement............................................    27

Dr. Todd Bridges, Senior Research Scientist, Environmental 
  Science, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    Oral Statement...............................................    35
    Written Statement............................................    37

Discussion.......................................................    42

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Sherry Hunt, Supervisory Civil Engineer, Agriculture Research 
  Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................    56

Dr. Todd Bridges, Senior Research Scientist, Environmental 
  Science, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers..........................    60

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Letters submitted Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    Natalie Snider, Associate Vice President, Environmental 
      Defense Fund...............................................    64
    National Wildlife Federation.................................    69
    Keith Laakkonen, President, et al., National Estuarine 
      Research Reserve Association...............................    72
    Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State 
      Floodplain Managers........................................    78

 
                          FROM GRAY TO GREEN: 
                         ADVANCING THE SCIENCE 
                     OF NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE 

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
                       Subcommittee on Environment,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Mikie Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.  

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Sherrill. I think we are ready to go, so the 
hearing will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is 
authorized to declare recess at any time. Pursuant to House 
Resolution 8, today, the Committee is meeting virtually. I want 
to announce a couple reminders to the Members about the conduct 
of this remote hearing. First, Members should keep their video 
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are 
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your 
microphones muted unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members 
have documents they wish to submit for the record, please email 
them to the Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated 
prior to the hearing.
    Good afternoon. Welcome to today's Environment Subcommittee 
hearing on nature-based infrastructure. As we face increased 
risk of hazards from natural disasters, many due to climate 
change, there is a growing appreciation for the short- and 
long-term benefits that nature-based, or green, infrastructure 
can provide.
    My district in north Jersey has faced devastating 
consequences of a changing climate and more severe weather 
patterns. We are far too familiar with floods, from the 
historic flooding caused by Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Ida 
to the more regular flood events that impose frequent costs to 
our communities. Like many Americans across the Nation, New 
Jerseyans are increasingly looking toward nature-based 
infrastructure solutions because of their wide range of 
benefits and co-benefits, and their resilience in a changing 
climate.
    In my district, the banks of the Whippany River and Peckman 
River have deteriorated badly, leading to frequent floods 
during storms. We learned from events like Irene and Ida that, 
in many situations, vegetation planted in the right locations 
can be much more effective than rocks and concrete alone at 
absorbing floodwaters and moving waters away from people and 
their properties. In my recent visits with constituents 
impacted by flooding in Montclair, Verona, and Morristown, I 
saw how soil erosion on the riverbanks has allowed trees to 
fall into the river and snag silt traveling downstream. This 
decreases the depth of the river and exacerbates flooding in 
nearby neighborhoods. Based on this and other flood dynamics, 
our community is considering options to leverage the benefits 
of natural infrastructure to protect against flooding, such as 
using vegetation to reinforce riverbanks and stop chronic 
riverbank erosion. I hope to hear more from today's witnesses 
about how these green infrastructure solutions can help my 
constituents, as well as those in other communities facing a 
diverse set of natural hazards, many of which we are seeing 
with greater frequency as we feel the impacts of climate 
change.
    But the decision whether to use nature-based infrastructure 
is not always easy. Decisionmakers in New Jersey and across the 
country need to consider the costs and the benefits of 
traditional engineered--or gray--infrastructure, natural 
infrastructure, or a combination thereof. Unfortunately, 
engineers and decisionmakers often don't have all the 
information that would allow for the most comprehensive 
analysis. Additional research, standardization of datasets, and 
long-term monitoring effects are needed to better understand 
the costs and benefits of gray or green infrastructure so that 
a clear comparison can be made between a range of options.
    We must improve our ability to quantify the benefits of 
natural infrastructure, like the reduction in flood risk or 
erosion. And we must work toward improving our ability to 
quantify the co-benefits of nature-based infrastructure, which 
are not always easily monetized. These can include the public 
health benefits of increased greenery, support for natural 
habitats and wildlife, or the sequestration of vast quantities 
of carbon.
    Preservation of wetlands like the Great Swamp National 
Wildlife Refuge in my district, for example, can avoid future 
flooding by preserving natural flood storage from development 
and can provide natural habitat and improved water quality. I 
have worked to expand similar forward-thinking efforts like the 
Army Corps' Natural Storage Preservation program that would 
improve flood mitigation by acquiring 5,200 acres of wetlands 
for preservation as natural storage of Passaic River 
floodwaters.
    And so I also hope to hear from today's witnesses both 
about how communities can assess the benefits and costs of 
targeted green infrastructure improvements, as well as holistic 
planning that utilizes and preserves--sorry, I was trying to 
look at the clock, too--utilizes and preserves existing natural 
resources. Many Federal agencies are working together, and with 
external stakeholders, to conduct this research. They're also 
helping communities determine how nature-based solutions can be 
utilized most effectively, given their local needs and local 
conditions, and how they can be most appropriately be paired 
with more traditional gray infrastructure.
    We are fortunate to have representatives from NOAA 
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers on today's panel. I'm eager to hear from our 
witnesses about their work on natural and nature-based 
infrastructure in coastal, rural, and urban and suburban 
communities across the country, and explore what else the 
Federal Government can do to support the implementation of 
nature-based infrastructure. As our climate changes, so too 
does the way we look at infrastructure and resilience. Nature-
based infrastructure will need to play a bigger role as we move 
into the future. I hope through our conversations today, we can 
better pinpoint the specific areas of research that the Federal 
Government should prioritize and share with our communities.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]

    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on nature-
based infrastructure.
    As we face increased risk of hazards from natural 
disasters, many due to climate change, there is a growing 
appreciation for the short and long-term benefits that nature-
based, or green, infrastructure can provide.
    My district in North Jersey has faced devastating 
consequences of a changing climate and more severe weather 
patterns. We are far too familiar with floods, from the 
historic flooding caused by Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Ida 
to the more regular flood events that impose frequent costs to 
our communities. Like many Americans across the nation, New 
Jerseyans are increasingly looking towards nature-based 
infrastructure solutions because of their wide range of 
benefits and co-benefits, and their resilience in a changing 
climate.
    In my district, the banks of the Whippany River and Peckman 
River have deteriorated badly, leading to frequent floods 
during storms. We learned from events like Irene and Ida that, 
in many situations, vegetation planted in the right locations 
can be much more effective than rocks and concrete alone at 
absorbing floodwaters and moving waters away from people and 
their properties. In my recent visits with constituents 
impacted by flooding in Montclair, Verona, and Morristown, I 
saw how soil erosion on the riverbanks has allowed trees to 
fall into the river and snag silt traveling downstream. This 
decreases the depth of the river and exacerbates flooding in 
nearby neighborhoods.
    Based on this and other flood dynamics, our community is 
considering options to leverage the benefits of natural 
infrastructure to protect against flooding, such as using 
vegetation to reinforce riverbanks and stop chronic riverbank 
erosion. I hope to hear more from today's witnesses about how 
these green infrastructure solutions can help my constituents 
as well as those in other communities facing a diverse set of 
natural hazards, many of which we are seeing with greater 
frequency as we feel the impacts of climate change. But the 
decision whether to use nature-based infrastructure is not 
always easy. Decision makers in New Jersey and across the 
country need to consider the costs and the benefits of 
traditional engineered, or gray, infrastructure, natural 
infrastructure, or a combination thereof.
    Unfortunately, engineers and decision makers often don't 
have all the information that would allow for the most 
comprehensive analysis. Additional research, standardization of 
data sets and long-term monitoring efforts are needed to better 
understand the costs and benefits of gray or green 
infrastructure so that a clear comparison can be made between a 
range of options. We must improve our ability to quantify the 
benefits of natural infrastructure, like the reduction in flood 
risk or erosion. And we must work towards improving our ability 
to quantify the co-benefits of nature-based infrastructure, 
which are not always easily monetized.
    These can include the public health benefits of increased 
greenery, support for natural habitats and wildlife, or the 
sequestration of vast quantities of carbon. Preservation of 
wetlands like the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in my 
district, for example, can avoid future flooding by preserving 
natural flood storage from development and can provide natural 
habitat and improved water quality. I have worked to expand 
similar forward-thinking efforts like the Army Corps' Natural 
Storage Preservation program that would improve flood 
mitigation by acquiring 5,200 acres of wetlands for 
preservation as natural storage of Passaic River flood waters. 
And so I also hope to hear from today's witnesses both about 
how communities can assess the benefits and costs of targeted 
green infrastructure improvements as well as holistic planning 
that utilizes and preserves existing natural resources.
    Many federal agencies are working together, and with 
external stakeholders, to conduct this research. They're also 
helping communities determine how nature-based solutions can be 
utilized most effectively given their local needs and local 
conditions, and how they can be most appropriately paired with 
more traditional gray infrastructure. We are fortunate to have 
representatives from NOAA, the Department of Agriculture, and 
the US Army Corps of Engineers on today's panel. I am eager to 
hear from our witnesses about their work on natural and nature-
based infrastructure in coastal, rural, and urban and suburban 
communities across the country, and explore what else the 
federal government can do to support the implementation of 
nature-based infrastructure.
    As our climate changes, so too does the way we look at 
infrastructure and resilience. Nature-based infrastructure will 
need to play a bigger role as we move into the future. I hope 
through our conversations today, we can better pinpoint the 
specific areas of research that the federal government should 
prioritize and share with our communities.

    Chairwoman Sherrill. The Chair now recognizes Ranking 
Member Bice for an opening statement.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and thank you to 
our entire panel of witnesses for appearing before the 
Subcommittee and sharing their expertise with us this 
afternoon.
    Infrastructure is often--an often-mentioned topic that 
traditionally comes with bipartisan support and agreement. We 
all understand that America's infrastructure has been slowly 
deteriorating over the last few decades and requires 
significant investment in nationwide projects to avoid existing 
structures from crumbling entirely.
    But today's hearing is about a side of infrastructure that 
might not be as popular or even entirely understood: nature-
based or green infrastructure. While most people understand 
infrastructure as the manmade roads, buildings, and structures 
we see every day, infrastructure can also include natural 
systems in nature like wetlands, green roofs, or bio wells--
bioswales.
    While there are varying different definitions for this 
specific area and what is included for today's hearing, I am 
going to refer to it as green infrastructure and focus on 
projects that intentionally align natural and engineering 
processes by combining traditional infrastructure with nature-
based solutions. That alignment is important because while 
nature and nature-based solutions can be effective, sustainable 
and resilient on their own, most communities face persistent 
hazards like erosion, storm surges that require components of 
traditional infrastructure to ensure the maximum safety of the 
community.
    So, to me, green infrastructure should always be a hybrid 
approach that combines the best of both worlds: environmental 
components that are naturally occurring or mimic nature and 
long-lasting, effective manmade components. That is the most 
reasonable way to build and--or restore high-quality, low-cost 
resilient communities.
    I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Sherry Hunt as a 
witness to testify on her extremely valuable work. She's based 
in Stillwater, Oklahoma, and like me and Ranking Member Lucas 
is a proud graduate of Oklahoma State University, go Pokes. But 
more importantly, as an ag engineer working on the USDA Ag 
Research Service, Dr. Hunt's work has led to the development of 
designs and methodologies being used to rehabilitate thousands 
of dams across the country. Her research focuses on aging and 
weakened dams, something that Oklahoma knows a little bit 
about, many of which are in remote or rural communities, and 
her designs, methods, and simulations can safely extend the 
service life of these dams to protect life and property. That 
is extremely important to the communities that might not be 
high on a priority list for Federal assistance.
    But as we discuss the benefits of natural infrastructure, 
it is important we keep all options on the table and understand 
it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. As Dr. Hunt will tell 
us today, it is not as easy as just planting trees on the bank 
of a river or slowing water flow with logs and branches like 
beavers. Long-term, safe solutions require manmade structures 
like the roller-compacted concrete she used for a spillway over 
the top of dams near areas with increased population growth. I 
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on how ARS 
(Agricultural Research Service) and Dr. Hunt's research can 
contribute to the broader conversation of green infrastructure.
    Although it might seem untraditional, we should encourage 
collaboration and data-sharing between research agencies like 
NOAA and regulatory agencies like the Department of Ag. NOAA is 
undoubtedly well-equipped to research coastal management 
issues, but that work may not necessarily apply to inland or 
rural communities like we have in Oklahoma. Therefore, it is my 
hope that today's hearing will--cannot only identify research 
gaps but also ways agencies can come together to address the 
full range of communities seeking to improve their 
infrastructure with nature-based solutions.
    Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here this 
afternoon, and I look forward to your testimony. Madam 
Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Bice follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and thank you to our entire 
panel of witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee and 
sharing their expertise with us this morning.
    Infrastructure is an often-mentioned topic that 
traditionally comes with bipartisan support and agreement. We 
all understand that America's infrastructure has been slowly 
deteriorating over the last few decades and requires 
significant investment in nationwide projects to avoid existing 
structures from crumbling entirely.
    But today's hearing is about a side of infrastructure that 
might not be as popular or even entirely understood: nature-
based or green infrastructure. While most people understand 
infrastructure as the manmade roads, buildings, and structures 
we see every day, infrastructure can also include natural 
systems and nature, like wetlands, green roofs, or bioswales.
    While there are varying definitions for this specific area 
and what is included, for today's hearing, I'm going to refer 
to it as ``green infrastructure'' and focus on projects that 
intentionally align natural and engineering processes by 
combining traditional infrastructure with nature-based 
solutions. That alignment is important because while nature and 
nature-based solutions can be effective, sustainable, and 
resilient on their own, most communities face persistent 
hazards like erosion and storm surges that require components 
of traditional infrastructure to ensure the maximum safety of 
the community.
    So to me, green infrastructure should always be a hybrid 
approach that combines the best of both worlds: environmental 
components that are naturally occurring or mimic nature, and 
long-lasting, effective manmade components. That is the most 
reasonable way to build or restore high quality, low cost, 
resilient communities.
    I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Sherry Hunt as a 
witness to testify on her extremely valuable work. She's based 
in Stillwater, Oklahoma, and like me and Ranking Member Lucas, 
is a proud graduate of Oklahoma State University! Go Pokes! But 
more importantly, as an agricultural engineer working in the 
USDA's Agricultural Research Service, Dr. Hunt's work has led 
to the development of designs and methodologies being used to 
rehabilitate thousands of dams across the country.
    Her research focuses on aging or weakened dams, many of 
which are in remote or rural communities, and her designs, 
methods, and simulations can safely extend the service life of 
these dams to protect life and property. That is extremely 
important to communities that might not be high on the priority 
list for federal assistance. But as we discuss the benefits of 
natural infrastructure, it's important we keep all options on 
the table and understand it's not a one-size-fits-all approach.
    As Dr. Hunt will tell us today, it's not as easy as just 
planting trees on the bank of a river or slowing water flow 
with logs and branches like beavers. Long-term, safe solutions 
require manmade structures like the ``roller compacted 
concrete'' she used for a spillway over the top of dams near 
areas with increased population growth. I look forward to 
hearing more from all of our witnesses on how ARS and Dr. 
Hunt's research can contribute to the broader conversation on 
green infrastructure. Although it might seem untraditional, we 
should encourage collaboration and data sharing between 
research agencies like NOAA and regulatory agencies like the 
Department of Agriculture.
    NOAA is undoubtedly well equipped to research coastal 
management issues, but that work may not necessarily apply to 
inland or rural communities like we have in Oklahoma. 
Therefore, it is my hope that today's hearing can not only 
identify research gaps, but also ways agencies can come 
together to address the full range of communities seeking to 
improve their infrastructure with nature-based solutions.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today 
and I look forward to each of your testimony. Thank you, 
Chairwoman Sherrill, I yield back the balance of my time.

    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, for holding this important 
hearing today.
    Monday's IPCC report on climate impacts, adaptation, and 
vulnerability underscored the worsening climate crisis and need 
for immediate action.
    Many of the climate impacts described in the report cannot 
be avoided regardless of our mitigation efforts.
    That is why it is essential that we ramp up climate 
adaptation in parallel with mitigation efforts.
    Nature-based infrastructure is a crucial component of these 
climate adaptation efforts.
    Federal agencies play an important role in conducting the 
research and development necessary for effective implementation 
of nature-based infrastructure. They evaluate ecosystem 
services of living shorelines.
    They assess the benefits of increased urban greenery to 
stormwater management and to public health. And they study the 
ability of vegetation to reduce pollutants from wildfire smoke 
or to sequester carbon.
    However, there remains a need to further coordinate and 
collaborate these federal efforts with a diverse set of 
stakeholders. Opportunities to implement nature-based 
infrastructure must be inclusive and accessible to all 
communities. This means improving federal communication and 
engagement with underserved and front-line communities.
    For communities to comprehensively consider opportunities 
for nature-based solutions, we must better quantify their 
benefits and co-benefits. We must also develop more consistent 
valuation methods that can be used across communities in 
different regions of the country.
    Potential negative impacts of traditional ``gray'' 
infrastructure can also be compounded in frontline and 
underserved communities. It is time that the combined co-
benefits of ``green'' infrastructure are realized in those same 
communities.
    The federal government has a crucial role to play in making 
natural infrastructure solutions accessible for all 
communities.
    Agencies like NOAA, USDA, and the Army Corps of Engineers, 
conduct and support nature-based infrastructure research. These 
also play a critical role in providing communities and decision 
makers the support and technical assistance needed to implement 
these projects.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how Congress 
can enhance their agencies' research and development activities 
for nature-based infrastructure. With that, I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you for holding today's hearing, Chairwoman Sherrill.
    Natural infrastructure, while not a frequent topic of 
discussion, is nevertheless important to our communities. 
Traditionally, we think of infrastructure as the roads, 
bridges, and power grids that keep our country functioning. 
They're the physical framework of our society. While most of 
that infrastructure is manmade, we also have naturally 
occurring landscape features which can help lessen the impacts 
of weather events such as flooding or droughts.
    That's right--nature IS infrastructure.
    When Oklahomans consider practical examples of natural 
infrastructure, they don't need to look far. Oklahoma is home 
to more than 2,100 earthen dams, which are managed by local 
communities with assistance provided by USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service. These dams are so common, in 
fact, that 90% of Oklahomans live within 20 miles of a dam. 
These dams are very effective at limiting the potentially 
devastating impacts of flooding, which could wipe out a 
season's worth of crops in the blink of an eye.
    But like a lot of our nation's infrastructure, these dams 
are showing their age. Nationwide, more than 5,000 of these 
dams are nearing or have exceeded the end of their functional 
lives and are in need of repair. It is because of this great 
need that I authored the Small Watershed Rehabilitation program 
more than two decades ago.
    Through this program NRCS has extended the service life of 
hundreds of these important structures across the state of 
Oklahoma.
    This work is even more urgent now because as our climate 
changes, we are seeing more frequent and more costly extreme 
weather events each year. In addition to improving near- and 
longer-term weather forecasting to understand when and where 
these events will occur, this Committee must carefully consider 
how we adapt to these occurrences to minimize damage to life 
and property.
    It is appropriate that USDA has a leading role in the 
maintenance and repair of these dams. After all, America's 
farmers and ranchers have always led the way in managing land 
use to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture production 
while also protecting against extreme weather events. Small 
steps taken by these producers, such as planting buffer strips 
along water streams, are an effective means of reducing the 
impact of flooding and nutrient runoff.
    Our panel of witnesses represents a number of agencies 
across the federal government who utilize natural 
infrastructure to mitigate the effects of extreme weather 
events. I am pleased we will hear from Dr. Sherry Hunt, who is 
based at USDA's Agricultural Research Service lab in 
Stillwater, Oklahoma, about her important research in this 
area. Her work examines ways we can use natural methods to 
extend the lives of the dams which are so important to these 
rural communities.
    I thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise with us 
and I look forward to a productive discussion. Thank you and I 
yield back.

    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. At this time I'd like to 
introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Steven Thur. 
Since 2017, Dr. Thur has been the Director of NOAA's National 
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS). Dr. Thur oversees 
NCCOS's, NCCOS, four primary research areas: coastal change, 
marine spatial ecology, social science, and stressor impacts of 
mitigation.
    Our next witness, as we heard, is Dr. Sherry Hunt. Dr. Hunt 
is the Supervisory Civil Engineer of the Hydraulic Engineering 
Research Unit at the Agricultural Research Service of the 
United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, in Stillwater, 
Oklahoma. Dr. Hunt is an internationally recognized authority 
in physical modeling of hydraulic structures and embankment 
breach.
    Our final witness today is Dr. Todd Bridges. Dr. Bridges is 
the U.S. Army Senior Research Scientist for Environmental 
Science. Dr. Bridges' responsibilities include leading 
research, development, and environmental initiatives for the 
U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    As our witnesses should know, you will each have five 
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will 
be included in the record for the hearing. When you all have 
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. 
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel. We 
will start with Dr. Thur.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVEN THUR,

          NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN SCIENCE,

        NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    Dr. Thur. Good afternoon. Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking 
Member Bice, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Dr. Steven Thur, and 
I'm the Director of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean 
Science at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in exploring nature-
based infrastructure and associated research gaps. My testimony 
today will highlight how NOAA is supporting research on the 
effective use of nature-based infrastructure as a means to 
enhance coastal resilience.
    The evidence is clear. Weather and climate disasters are 
already devastating our communities, and we must prepare 
ourselves for the unavoidable impacts to come. In 2021, there 
were 20 billion-dollar disasters in the United States, and 
total damages were approximately $145 billion. Along the coast, 
sea-level rise, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, flooding, and 
other ocean-related climate risks increasingly threaten people 
and infrastructure. At the same time, coastal ecosystems that 
provide natural protection from coastal flooding and erosion 
are shrinking and degrading due to coastal development, warming 
waters, and more.
    The use of nature-based infrastructure offers the potential 
for scenarios with multiple benefits. For instance, it is 
possible to design nature-based features that are as or more 
effective than traditionally engineered gray solutions in 
reducing the flood risk to nearby communities. Both nature-
based and traditional solutions may satisfy risk reduction 
requirements. However, nature-based solutions may also enable 
the same funding to advance multiple objectives holistically 
such as endangered species recovery, fisheries production, 
climate adaptation, and access for recreational use.
    Some of these natural infrastructure solutions may involve 
an increase in the cost of the project relative to what would 
be strictly necessary for just the flood risk reduction 
benefits. Such modifications and potential increased 
expenditures may be a more efficient use of Federal funding 
overall to yield the maximum net benefit for society. Single-
purpose coastal projects have been the primary approach for the 
past half-century for both water management and environmental 
programs. For the next half-century, nature-based 
infrastructure projects provide an opportunity to 
simultaneously address multiple priorities.
    I would like to highlight three categories of research 
needs. First, we need to assess the performance of nature-based 
infrastructure. There are perceived uncertainties in the 
performance of nature-based infrastructure, and these are often 
cited as a barrier to implementation. To address this research 
gap, NOAA is partnering with Federal and State agencies to 
evaluate the less-understood aspects of their effectiveness. 
NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science will soon 
start evaluating how some existing nature-based infrastructure 
projects have evolved since their initial construction. In our 
experience, most of these projects may not have extensive 
monitoring data but comparison of current conditions to as-
built conditions will allow for an assessment of how the 
features performed and evolved over time.
    Second, we need to quantify the ecosystem benefits of 
nature-based infrastructure. There is limited empirical data 
quantifying the benefits of some nature-based features beyond 
their primary purpose for flood risk management such as 
providing habitat and carbon sequestration. NOAA entered into 
an interagency agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
through which we are monitoring newly installed Corps projects 
collecting empirical data on long-term effectiveness of nature-
based features and improving ecosystem services.
    And third, we need to employ social science techniques to 
value benefits and address public perception of nature-based 
infrastructure. New research is starting to put a dollar value 
on the risk management benefits provided by nature-based 
infrastructure. We need further study to value all ecosystem 
services of nature-based infrastructure so that this 
information can be appropriately factored into benefit-cost 
analyses and associated decisions on coastal infrastructure 
investment. Understanding and addressing perceptions about the 
effectiveness of nature-based solutions is needed in parallel 
with valuation studies. As green infrastructure has been used 
less commonly than traditionally engineered coastal projects in 
recent decades, there is sometimes hesitancy to use nature-
based solutions because they are less familiar. Social science 
research is a current gap that must be addressed to enable 
decisionmakers to effectively communicate and overcome such 
hesitancy.
    In conclusion, nature-based solutions have a significant 
role to play. Our national discussion on infrastructure 
investment must incorporate elements of sustainability to 
provide fully for the health, welfare, economic vitality, and 
socially just climate resilience of our communities. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Thur follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Wow, that was exactly five minutes. 
Thank you very much, Dr. Thur, and a wonderful presentation.
    Next, we'll hear from Dr. Hunt.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. SHERRY HUNT,

                  SUPERVISORY CIVIL ENGINEER,

                 AGRICULTURE RESEARCH SERVICE,

                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Dr. Hunt. Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking Member Bice, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 
provide testimony on this important topic. I'm Dr. Sherry Hunt, 
Supervisory Civil Engineer of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, Hydraulic 
Engineering Research Unit, in Stillwater, Oklahoma. I also 
serve as our agency's dam safety officer and have been a 
Federal researcher for nearly 22 years.
    The Hydraulic Engineering Research Unit is a one-of-a-kind 
facility that relies on gravity flow water for testing small to 
prototype-scale models of channels and hydraulic structures, 
including earthen dams, spillways, and grade stabilization 
structures. Today, the Hydraulic Engineering Research Unit's 
mission is to develop criteria for the analysis and design of 
conservation structures and channels for the conveyance, 
storage, and measurement of runoff waters.
    For more than 80 years, ARS scientists have been central to 
providing research support for the USDA's Small Watershed 
Program. This program combines conservation practices in the 
watershed with earthen multipurpose dams on tributary streams. 
The design standards developed by our scientists contributed to 
the construction of nearly 12,000 dams and associated 
conservation practices in more than 2,000 watershed projects, 
encompassing 160 million acres in 47 States. These dams provide 
the United States an estimated $2.3 billion in annual benefits 
through flood protection, rural and municipal water supplies, 
water for agricultural and energy production, recreation, and 
tourism.
    ARS scientists remain committed to providing research 
support for these aging dams. ARS scientists developed 
standardized dam rehabilitation design criteria for routing 
floodwater around or over these dams impacted by the transition 
from rural to urban settings. The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service expects to apply this design criteria to 
approximately 1,200 program-funded dams with an anticipated 
construction cost savings of up to $1.2 billion.
    In addition, ARS scientists conduct research to quantify 
and predict erosion processes to improve design and analysis 
tools for earthen dams. I collaborate with a diverse group of 
stakeholders representing Federal agencies, State dam safety 
offices, private consultants, and national and international 
scientific peers for developing and implementing evolving 
technology like the physically based simplified earthen dam 
erosion and failure prediction model wind dam. Our design 
standards, engineering tools, and models have been successfully 
adopted by our collaborators like the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    Climate and environmental change and human activities are 
threatening water and land resources and economic growth across 
America because of the aging dam infrastructure. It should be 
noted that approximately 76,000 dams on the U.S. national 
inventory of dams are earthen, which are more susceptible to 
these threats. But ARS is committed to addressing these 
challenges as we collect larger volumes and more complex data.
    But this too brings challenges in data acquisition and 
management, as well as how we share data. For instance, current 
dam monitoring systems available have drawbacks as they don't 
provide data on water quality or quantity for real-time use by 
emergency managers, irrigation districts, and farmers and 
producers. These data, coupled with decision-support tools like 
smart applications, will improve the sustainability of 
agricultural production for a growing population in the United 
States.
    ARS scientists are committed to taking a holistic approach 
that engages collaborators through our Partnerships for Data 
Innovations, PDI for short. PDI is a field-engaged effort to 
innovate the way we collect, handle, store, use, and serve 
data. Leveraging public and private partnerships will create 
customized solutions to reduce the time researchers spend on 
data management so we can focus more time on the science.
    In closing, the question that comes before us today is how 
do we address the challenges that affect the sustainability of 
our agricultural production, water resources, and our economic 
growth that these dams provide? The answer is simple, through 
collaborative partnerships and a holistic science-based 
approach to develop cloud-based technologies and engineering 
tools for standardized data collection and management, 
dissemination of data for aiding sustainable resource 
management and precision agriculture, and decision-support 
tools for assessing the social and economic benefits of our 
water and land resources. ARS is committed and poised to be the 
global leader in agricultural discoveries through scientific 
excellence. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hunt follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. And as a point of 
personal privilege, I just want to ask, is that the Hydraulic 
Engineering Research Unit behind you in the picture that you 
have up on your screen?
    Dr. Hunt. It is. It is. That is an earthen dam back there.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Oh, great. Thank you so much. Sorry, I 
muted myself.
    Finally, we will hear from Mr. Todd Bridges.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. TODD BRIDGES,

       SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,

                  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Dr. Bridges. Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking Member Bice, 
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the 
Committee, I'm honored to testify before you today. I am the 
Army Senior Research Scientist for Environmental Science at the 
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. And among 
other responsibilities, I serve as the National Lead for the 
Corps of Engineers Engineering with Nature Initiative that is 
working to support sustainable, resilient infrastructure 
systems for the 21st century.
    In the United States we are blessed with an abundance of 
natural capital, 3,000 miles of barrier islands along our 
coastlines, thousands of miles of mainland beaches and dunes, 
and 100 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 States alone. 
Wetlands along the Northeast Atlantic Coast helped to avert 
$625 million of flood damage during Hurricane Sandy, and the 
500,000 acres of mangroves around Florida helped to avert more 
than $1.5 billion in flood damages during Hurricane Irma in 
2017.
    In our work, nature-based solutions refers to the 
intentional and substantial use of natural systems to support 
water resources solutions. The Corps has made significant use 
of such approaches for decades, and in 2010 the Corps 
established the Engineering with Nature Initiative to advance 
integration of human engineering and natural systems.
    We've published two volumes of Engineering with Nature: An 
Atlas. These books showcase 118 examples of constructed 
projects around the world that illustrate what Engineering with 
Nature practice looks like, along with the economic, 
environmental, and social benefits they produce. Fifty of these 
projects were built by the Corps of Engineers. Example projects 
include Horseshoe Bend Island in the Atchafalaya River of 
Louisiana that was constructed through beneficial use of 
sediment dredged from the navigation channel. And that island 
has provided 80 acres of habitat in addition to engineering 
benefits. Hamilton and Sears Point wetland projects in 
California are restoring 1,500 acres of wetlands while 
supporting coastal resilience with respect to sea-level rise in 
San Francisco Bay.
    Our work on Engineering with Nature over the last decade 
has allowed us to identify many of the key enablers for 
advancing Engineering with Nature, including developing new 
science and engineering practice, fostering creative planning 
and design, documenting the diverse benefits of nature-based 
solutions, communicating widely to facilitate progress, 
preparing practitioners through education and training, and 
leveraging the power of collaboration across organizations and 
sectors to innovate.
    And likewise, we've recognized that challenges exist. 
Conventional engineering in nature-based solutions may not 
align with the community's vision. All solutions, whether 
conventional or nature-based, require land to build the 
solutions at the scale the problems require, and hesitancy 
regarding new engineering practice.
    We're fueling our progress through collaboration and 
partnering. The Corps of Engineers established the Network for 
Engineering with Nature with the University of Georgia in 2020 
to engage across sectors and universities around the country, 
including the University of Oklahoma, Arizona State University, 
the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, among 
others. And we're partnering with other government agencies at 
the Federal and State level such as NOAA, including Dr. Thur 
and his colleagues at NCCOS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the National Park Service, the California Department 
of Water Resources, among others.
    The Corps has established national Engineering with Nature 
practice leads for coastal and river applications to complement 
the leadership being provided by the six Engineering with 
Nature proving grounds at our district offices across the 
Corps. For example, we're working with Galveston District on 
nature-based coastal resilience across Texas, with Philadelphia 
District on Back Bay nature-based solutions in New Jersey, and 
with St. Louis District at the intersection of river and 
agricultural landscapes.
    Dialogue and collaboration with the private sector, 
nonprofits, and financial institutions is helping us understand 
the business case for nature-based solutions. We're 
collaborating with organizations across the Department of 
Defense to support mission resilience at installations through 
Engineering with Nature. With the Department of the Army, with 
the Navy, with the Air Force and its $5 billion rebuild of 
Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida following Hurricane Michael, 
and with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or 
DARPA, and its reef fence program.
    Nature-based solutions are being built around the world as 
standalone projects and, importantly, in combination with 
conventional engineering to produce multipurpose benefits. I'd 
like to thank you again for the invitation to testify before 
the Committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Bridges follows:]
 
 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much, Dr. Bridges.
    Before we proceed, I would like to bring to the 
Subcommittee's attention four letters for the record from 
organizations that engage in nature-based infrastructure. These 
include submissions from the Environmental Defense Fund, the 
National Wildlife Federation, the National Estuarine Research 
Reserve Association, and the Association of State Floodplain 
Managers. These letters highlight research gaps with respect to 
nature-based infrastructure and support additional Federal 
investment in this research.
    Without objection, I am entering these documents into the 
record.
    At this point, we will begin our first round of questions. 
The Chair recognizes herself for five minutes.
    In my opening remarks, I told you about my visits to 
waterways in my northern New Jersey district. One of the 
problems I've heard about from my constituents is that 
historically deeper waterways have seen their depths reduced 
from the buildup of silt. For example, along the Whippany River 
in Hanover, New Jersey, I'm told sections that used to be 
twenty feet deep are only four feet deep now due to the silt 
buildup. This dramatically reduces the capacity of the river to 
handle increased water flow from heavy rain events, resulting 
in waters overtopping the riverbanks and flooding nearby 
communities.
    Dr. Bridges, I understand that part of the solution in such 
instances is to remove obstructions in and along the river and 
increase the channel depth. But I'm interested in hearing about 
how nature-based improvements can be a sustainable part of the 
solution. Can you tell me about the Army Corps' projects where 
measures like replanting vegetation along eroding riverbanks 
and de-snagging have reduced long-term flooding?
    Dr. Bridges. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman. I 
think there are a whole range of opportunities. You've 
mentioned a few of them, including riparian-zone restoration. 
Soil that is eroding off of the landscape, you know, is ending 
up in waterways and creating this enhancement in sedimentation, 
which we then have to, if you will, artificially or through 
engineering means correct through dredging, for example.
    I would mention again this Horseshoe Bend island project 
that I mentioned. I know it's a completely different system. 
But one of engineering benefits we derived there is that when 
this 88-acre island was built with sediment that we dredged 
from the navigation channel, the hydraulics of the system 
changed such that now that portion of the river actually moves 
sediment more efficiently and effectively than it did before so 
that we now save about $4 million in less dredging costs at 
that portion of the navigation channel because of that island. 
And that island is natural. We provided the sediment to the 
river. The sediment built the island--I mean, the river built 
the island. It is in a sense a nature-based river training 
structure. And so we're getting engineering benefits from 
nature at the same time that we're getting environmental, as 
well as social benefits.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And are there other natural 
infrastructure ideas that can be used to reduce stormwater 
runoff into these waterways?
    Dr. Bridges. Your question is for me again? I think there 
are a whole range of them. When we can control overland flow of 
water using such features as green infrastructure and bioswales 
and detention areas, we can--it also provides an opportunity to 
control the flow of soil or sediment into systems. And I think 
it's a combination of these kinds of measures, including 
natural measures but also by restoring landscapes where we have 
serious runoff.
    I'm actually borrowed--borrowing an office at Marine Air 
Station Yuma in Yuma, Arizona, right now, where we're having a 
3-day workshop on the application of nature-based solutions in 
arid climates. And soil movement during storms and flooding 
events in the desert is a very serious problem and moves a lot 
of sediment, especially after wildfires. But we have to take 
care of the landscape. If we can take care of the landscape, we 
can reduce the sediment loadings into our river and stream 
systems.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. And I'm sorry to be 
picking on you, Dr. Bridges, but my district in North Jersey 
was devastated by Hurricane Ida, and increased rainfall due to 
climate change will continue to be a significant burden to my 
constituents. I'm encouraged by the potential of nature-based 
infrastructure solutions to help mitigate the effects of severe 
rainfall and flooding, and this Committee has already passed my 
bill, the PRECIP Act, which directs NOAA to update 
precipitation estimates, and I expect to have a full House vote 
on it soon.
    I'm wondering if you or Dr. Thur know how that will--how 
improved precipitation estimates will help support the 
strategic implementation of natural infrastructure.
    Dr. Thur. If I may? So understanding and predicting the 
flow of water is critical to most of our economic activity, and 
NOAA has a huge role to play in that. And I recognize Ranking 
Member Bice mentioned inland areas in her opening comments as 
well. So NOAA may not have a direct role in encouraging natural 
infrastructure inland. Our trust resources are along the coast. 
However, our science can provide support to those that do have 
that implementation role. And so we are attempting to model and 
understand how severe will precipitation events be in the 
future, so what are the inundation pulses that our natural 
infrastructure components need to be designed to handle. And so 
we're providing science solutions and precipitation modeling to 
our partners, including the Army Corps and localities in inland 
areas.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. I'm afraid my time is 
up. This has been very interesting. And so I am now going to 
turn it over and recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, Mrs. Bice, for five minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill.
    My question--the first question is directed to Dr. Hunt. 
You're currently undertaking a pretty unique project related to 
developing cloud-based data base networks within the ARS. As 
Dr. Thur can attest, over the last few years, NOAA has also 
been working on a similar transition for their models from data 
to cloud. I want to start by asking about the effort, the 
challenges you're facing, and if there are any ideas or 
suggestions on how NOAA or possibly DOE (Department of Energy) 
with their advanced computing power may be able to help you in 
this effort. And, Dr. Thur, you're also welcome to chime in 
there.
    Dr. Hunt. Thank you, Ranking Member Bice, for your 
question. Yes, we are getting heavily involved in the area of 
big data both historic and real-time through our Partnerships 
in Data Innovations, partnering with a number of other ARS 
scientists, as well as Federal agencies to pull in data such as 
the climatology, meteorology data that can be used to support 
the design of these infrastructure.
    And so some of the areas that we are looking and starting 
to develop is low-cost sensor networks, using and deploying 
unmanned aerial vehicles to help us assess these dams and other 
hydraulic infrastructure so we can have a better understanding 
of their performance and how they react to changing climate for 
instance. And so, yes, we are very heavily involved in this 
area and look to partner with other Federal agencies, as we 
already have.
    Mrs. Bice. Dr. Thur, would you like to comment on that?
    Dr. Thur. Thank you, ma'am. I would briefly. I would say 
that NOAA is constrained in our supercomputing capacity. And 
for weather forecasting in particular, we have about a 1:1 
ratio between the supercomputing power allocated to operational 
models for forecasts and research modeling, so that's the R&D 
(research and development) side. Other locations, including the 
European Center, have a 10:1 ratio, research-to-operations. And 
so we look forward to working with the Department of Energy for 
the supercomputing capacity that they may have that we can 
bring to bear on natural infrastructure, as well as other 
challenges.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that. And to followup, Dr. Thur, 
in your testimony you said that single-purpose coastal projects 
have been the primary approach for water management and 
environmental programs. I understand that your expertise is in 
coastal science, so this question might quickly move out of 
your range of knowledge. But on the coast it's easy to see how 
green infrastructure can be multiuse, reduces flood risk and 
restores fisheries, for example. But I have a feeling it is 
maybe not that easy for inland States like Oklahoma, which also 
have water management needs. Can you talk about the potential 
multiuse projects that NOAA can assist with that are not on the 
coast and what research is needed for these projects to yield 
the maximum net benefits for communities they're located in?
    Dr. Thur. Thank you for the question. I can provide an 
example. It is not from Oklahoma. It is from a riverine system 
in Oregon. It may be applicable. There in Tillamook we had a 
project that was primarily focused on restoring habitat for 
threatened salmon. However, that project also involved 
providing flood storage capacity by bringing down earthen 
levees and restoring the river's access to its historic 
floodplain. That worked for the salmon to provide additional 
habitat, but it also, in a 443-acre parcel, reduced flood 
damage to 4,800 acres in the nearby community. It just so 
happened we completed the project in 2017 there was a flood in 
that same year, and there was a dramatic decrease in damage to 
the infrastructure. And so as an example of riverine project we 
were involved with because of an endangered species that could 
be used in inland areas such as Oklahoma.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect. I think for Congressman Feenstra and I, 
who are inland, these types of projects are much more sort of 
applicable to where we are.
    And finally, Dr. Bridges, in your testimony you mentioned 
the Army Corps has established a Network for Engineering with 
Nature in 2020 and you're going to be partnering with the 
University of Oklahoma, among other institutions. Can you 
briefly talk about the partnership and the potential benefits?
    Dr. Bridges. Yes, thank you very much, Ranking Member Bice. 
Collaboration is key to innovation. I mean, it is. And the 
inland heartland of our country has substantial need and I 
think substantial opportunity for nature-based solutions. I did 
a 5,000 mile road trip this summer visiting all sorts of 
projects and different landscape contexts where I talked about 
nature-based solutions. I'm going to be in Oklahoma in 2 weeks 
meeting with folks at the University of Oklahoma, and one of 
the first products we're going to generate for this 
collaboration is a nature-based solutions playbook for the 
Great Plains.
    Mrs. Bice. Wow.
    Dr. Bridges. So how can we across the entire landscape from 
rivers and reservoirs and upland areas identify nature-based 
solutions that could be used in combination again with 
conventional engineering to provide engineering benefits for 
flood management, drought management, and everything in 
between, as well as the broader array of benefits, including 
recreational benefits, as well as environmental benefits that 
we can achieve? But I firmly--am firmly committed to the idea 
that the heartland and the inland, there are many opportunities 
and needs that we need to satisfy with these approaches.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Well, Dr. Bridges, I look forward to 
maybe connecting with you on that specific project.
    And Madam Chairwoman, my time has expired, so I yield back.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. I'm now going to defer to 
Committee Counsel for the order of recognition.
    Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee 
Counsel. And thank you to all our speakers. I really appreciate 
your time here.
    My home State of Illinois has done some really innovative 
things around cover crop incentive programs and we're working 
to try to see if we can build some national legislation that 
would build on this. The--as I don't need to tell you 
witnesses, there's a ton of benefits from different cover crop 
practices and increasing soil carbon retention. I think the 
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) found that every one 
percent increase in soil or organic matter leads to 20,000 
gallons of water per acre more water retention in soils, which 
of course helps with droughts. I'm also consistently intrigued 
by this--I think it was a National Academies of Science 
analysis that found that we can store an extra 250 million 
metric tons of carbon in our soils with better soil management 
techniques. And there's a whole litany of things we can do 
about that, but I am hard-pressed to think of any other 
negative emissions technology that actually grows our economy 
and helps for climate disaster.
    Dr. Hunt, I want to start with you. Can you give us a 
little bit of color on ARS's cover crop and healthy soil 
research platforms, how they can help us better understand the 
ability of cover crops to mitigate climate risk? And if you 
can, my legislative push has been on cover crops. Are there 
other soil management techniques we should also be thinking 
about to increase the ability of our soils to hold more carbon?
    Dr. Hunt. Very great question and a little bit outside my 
area, so that's likely a question for the record that I'll get 
back to you with from my staff. But what I can tell you is that 
the research that we provide on infrastructure for instance 
provides many benefits, including irrigation. And I know that 
isn't necessarily something that's traditionally done in your 
State, but that's one of the benefits that will help in 
drought-prone areas. We also have other ARS scientists working 
in various areas, and that's one thing great about ARS as a 
whole. It's a scientific organization where we coordinate our 
research and work together to answer some of these bigger 
problems like you have brought up.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I would love to--if you have some 
thoughts, let's followup off the record because it really is 
important. I mean, you know, I've said for a long time there's 
only three things we need to do to avert climate disaster. We 
need to double our energy efficiency, we need to figure out how 
to decarbonize our hard-to-decarbonize industries, and then we 
need to stop CO2 emissions by about 1992 because 
we've already overshot and these negative CO2 
technologies like in agriculture can help with that.
    The--I want to shift if I could to Dr. Bridges. The--
there's a company in my district called Profile Products that 
specializes in nature-based options for soil and erosion 
control products, and they're trying to be directly responsive 
to some concerns that the Illinois Department of Natural 
Resources has raised about that plastic netting that we always 
see on the sides of--you know, on the sides of roads when we're 
doing soil retention that can present a hazard to humans and 
wildlife, you know, these microplastics that degrade and go 
into the soils.
    I'm curious, Dr. Bridges, as you look nationally, what 
are--what practices can you tell us about for regrowing 
vegetation as a part of soil erosion for control of levees, 
dams, water-authorized projects? And when complying with these 
environmental standards, is the Corps looking specifically at 
environmentally sustainable technologies when selecting 
materials and techniques for these projects?
    Dr. Bridges. Thank you, sir, for the question. I would 
first like to, you know, say amen to your emphasis on soils. 
Plants and soils are so key not only to the carbon cycle but 
also to the hydrologic cycle. And our ability to kind of invest 
in plant soil systems, we can solve multiple problems at the 
same time, including the points you were making with respect to 
carbon sequestration. But, as you say, as you increase the 
carbon content of soils, that soil is also able to take on more 
water, so less flows over the surface and potentially streams 
into rivers that generate floods. So these things are all 
connected together.
    And I think it's one of the benefits of nature-based 
solutions is that they offer, you know, twofers and threefers 
and fourfers, you know, that we can get several different 
problems and challenges with the same investment. We've been 
making investments in plant systems. In fact, we've published 
one book on Engineering with Nature with native plants, how 
plants themselves are, you know, eco-engineers, and we need to 
figure out ways to use them more effectively for systems like 
sand dunes and stabilizing--making sand dunes along our coast 
more resilient but, as you point out, levees as well as other 
landscape features. And we're open and very interested in 
collaborating with private sector to advance more sustainable 
practices in regard to soil retention and plant systems 
overall.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Feenstra is now recognized.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Ranking 
Member Bice, and thank you to all our witnesses for your 
testimony and sharing your extensive experience today on this 
subject.
    Dr. Hunt, I have the pleasure of serving on the House 
Agricultural Committee, so I am happy for the opportunity to 
talk to folks from the USDA. Similar to your home State of 
Oklahoma, Iowa has a large number of small watershed projects 
and several earthen dams. We have learned how to fortify these 
structures dramatically over time thanks to the research done 
by the USDA. Moving forward, what other areas do you think we 
should direct USDA research to help ensure that we can get the 
maximum use out of our natural infrastructure for generations 
to come?
    Dr. Hunt. Thank you for your question. That is a very good 
question and part of the reason that we are spreading out into 
monitoring and assessing dam performance outside of our 
traditional physical modeling. But, you know, we learn 
something every day. One thing I know is that I work with many 
States like Iowa. And recently, they reached out to me about 
the use of new metal products in pipes for these dams and how 
that would affect the hydraulic performance of these 
structures. And this was in partnership with the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service where they had these questions. 
And so we can look back in our research but also it's important 
to recognize these new products are being developed that are 
being used that still need to be researched to ensure that they 
are performing as they should.
    But again, back to the monitoring, that is one aspect that 
we are truly starting to expand our research on so we can 
provide this data and share this data so irrigation districts 
can use the information to know how much water is available in 
the reservoir, for emergency managers to know how to mitigate 
possible flooding downstream. And so that is one area of 
research that is growing.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. Thank you 
very much.
    Dr. Thur, this is sort of going down the same vein as 
Congresswoman Bice. In your written testimony, it heavily 
focuses on NOAA's work on the coastal mitigation, particularly 
as it relates to the sea rise. Although my district is not near 
the coastal bodies of water, our lakes, watersheds, and rivers 
are of great importance. The Missouri River is a great example 
as it borders six of my district's most expansive counties. Can 
you explain how this research might benefit my constituents?
    Dr. Thur. I can, sir. Thank you for the question. As Dr. 
Bridges has mentioned, there are applications of specific 
techniques that may be appropriate for both coastal and 
riverine systems, and so I do think there is some 
transferability of research that's done on natural-based 
infrastructure along the coast that can be transported inland 
to riverine systems.
    I would also add that NOAA has an interest in nature-based 
solutions in freshwater inland areas because of the impacts 
downstream to our agency's trust resources. So I sit on the 
Hypoxia Task Force, which is focused on reducing excess 
nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River and work 
directly with State Departments of Agriculture to try to do 
that. The environmental challenge we're addressing there is a 
zone of low oxygen water in the Gulf of Mexico that prevents 
most life. Locally, those excess nutrients harm the waterways 
that you're talking about. So to the extent that natural and 
nature-based infrastructure can reduce excess nutrient 
pollution to our local waterways that flow downstream to NOAA's 
area of trust resources, we have significant interest there.
    Mr. Feenstra. Wonderful, wonderful. And I think I got just 
a few more seconds to ask my last question. Dr. Bridges, 
considering the durability and resilience of infrastructure 
projects over the long term, it is important to recognize that 
these nature-based infrastructure features are often paired 
with traditional infrastructure. For example, in Iowa we have a 
revolving loan fund that pairs these two approaches to improve 
water quality. The Army Corps of Engineers implements this 
approach as well. Do you agree that it is important to evaluate 
the pros and cons of different project features over the long 
term when it comes to cost-effectiveness and durability? And 
I've got about 15 seconds.
    Dr. Bridges. Yes, thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
Of course it's important to compare the costs and the benefits. 
I think one--one of the things that we're seeing happen in the 
emerging science with regard to nature-based solutions is how 
do we evaluate costs and benefits in a comprehensive fashion as 
opposed to a narrow view of costs and benefits. And there's a 
lot of progress being made on this front. And Dr. Thur referred 
to the importance of the social science in respect to this.
    I was actually in Iowa this summer on my trip, and I 
actually put my feet on the ground on some nature-based 
solutions in the form of what we call in the Corps of Engineers 
levy setbacks along the Missouri River where we're restoring 
floodplain, increasing potential for flood storage, and 
importantly relieving pressure on the conventional 
infrastructure that's being challenged by high flows. So there 
are tremendous potentials in States like yours to do this and 
to capture these costs and benefits in the broadest possible 
way.
    Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you, Dr. Bridges. And I'm glad 
you had your two feet in heaven there. With that, I yield back.
    Staff. Mrs. Fletcher is recognized.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, and thank you to 
Chairwoman Sherrill and Ranking Member Bice for holding this 
hearing today. And thanks to all of our witnesses for taking 
the time to testify. I've enjoyed all the testimony. It's been 
very helpful.
    Dr. Bridges, I couldn't help but notice in your testimony 
you mentioned your work on a project in my region, your work 
with the Galveston district of the Army Corps of Engineers on 
the Texas Coastal Spine Project. And for those less familiar 
with the project, this project includes both hard and nature-
based infrastructure along the Texas coast to protect the 
coast, including, importantly, the Houston-Galveston Bay area 
to protect us from storm surge and flooding relating--you know, 
rising during hurricanes. And it includes the restoration and 
creation of marshes and dunes and reefs and breakwaters and a 
lot of really innovative and important projects that I know our 
constituents are very excited to see get done. The Chief's 
report was just published last fall, and so it is now time for 
Congress to authorize it this year.
    Nature-based solutions are very important to my 
constituents in Houston. We see it in the Texas Coastal Spine 
Project, we see it in the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries 
Resiliency Study. These are issues--these are things that my 
constituents want to see us doing more of. And it's important 
to us in our area where we have had repeated flooding and storm 
surge affecting our whole region.
    We--as my colleagues on this Committee I think know by now, 
we had three 500-year floods three years in a row, one of which 
was the result of Hurricane Harvey, which was the most 
significant tropical cyclone rainfall event ever recorded. It 
dropped nine trillion gallons of water along the Texas coast, 
and it caused more than $125 billion in damages. So these 
issues are top of mind for my constituents all the time.
    Now, what we hear, the scientists who've come before this 
Committee ever since I've been in Congress have told us that 
storms like these will be more frequent and they will be longer 
in duration because of climate change.
    And so with that in mind, I want to direct really two 
questions to you. I'm going to start with Dr. Bridges. Just 
how--can you talk a little bit about how the Corps in the 
projects that you work on take into consideration that the 
conditions will change over time because of climate change? And 
certainly, we've seen that again this week with the most recent 
reports. So how do you take that into consideration as you're 
working on these nature-based projects in particular? And then 
I have a question for all of our witnesses after that.
    Dr. Bridges. OK. I'll try to be brief and to say I think 
it's increasingly important that when we do planning for 
projects of the scale of the one you mentioned along the coast 
of Texas that we consider in an imaginative way the scenarios 
that could play out that our infrastructure is going to be 
challenged by. Because if you were to ask anybody the months 
before Hurricane Harvey whether or not Houston was going to get 
50 inches of rain in 10 days, everybody would have said no. So 
we have to be creative and imaginative if we want to develop 
resilient systems. Both words are very important, resilient 
systems.
    And resilient systems I think can be developed, 
importantly, by trying to leverage what nature and what the 
landscape in that area can provide and support. And that's the 
work that we're doing with our Galveston district. And they're 
very much on the forefront. They're leaning forward in doing 
this kind of work. And I think the rest of the Corps has an 
opportunity to learn from them and their work in Texas, and 
we're happy to support them by bringing in elements to help 
create this more--this broader imagination for what our systems 
are going to be challenged by in the future. Thank you.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thanks so much for that. And I agree 
with you on the strength of the Galveston district in 
particular of the Corps. They've got great leadership, and 
they've really been very good partners as we address these most 
pressing issues for our communities. So I appreciate your 
answer there, and I do think it was unimaginable to us as well. 
And we in Congress and in the government need to do that 
imagining. We need to think about all of the things that can 
happen, especially as we talk about what could happen in our 
communities as a result of climate change.
    And so that was my--my next question is kind of for 
everyone, anyone who wants to take it. Just wondering what 
additional types of research and development at the Federal 
level, whether it's at the Corps or whether it's at NOAA or 
another agency, what would be most helpful to you in providing 
the best options to protect the Texas coast but coastal areas 
all across the country in light of rapidly changing climate?
    Dr. Thur. If I may?
    Mrs. Fletcher. Yes.
    Dr. Thur. Thank you for the question, ma'am. There are a 
wealth of projects that are being implemented along our coasts 
and in inland areas that are using nature-based features. There 
are at least a dozen or more programs that are funding those. 
The vast majority of those are focused solely on 
implementation. There are relatively few programs dedicated to 
long-term monitoring and research so that when our Nation 
reinvests in nature-based infrastructure following the next 
Superstorm Sandy or with the next Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act, we have the knowledge we need to develop these more 
effectively. And so I would identify for you there is a 
potential gap in the research mandate and potentially funding 
along with these large implementation projects that we have had 
authorized.
    Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Thank you so much for that. I have now 
exceeded my time, but I think that's very helpful guidance for 
our Committee as we look at how we can best support this work. 
So with that, Chairwoman Sherrill, I yield back, and thank you 
again for holding this hearing.
    Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and 
Ranking Member Bice for holding the hearing and to our 
witnesses for joining us.
    Dr. Thur, I'm going to jump right in and touch specifically 
on the Great Lakes. I'm from northeast Ohio, have enjoyed the 
Great Lakes for my entire life. And as I'm sure you know, they 
are experiencing record high water levels and severe storm 
surges that continue to significantly erode many bluffs and 
beaches across the shoreline and put more and more communities 
at risk for flooding and water quality impacts, something I'm 
seeing every single year. And as a kid I don't remember ever 
seeing this much flooding or hardly any flooding at all.
    Although nature-based infrastructure presents a promising 
solution to an increasingly difficult challenge, which I just 
highlighted, its use remains quite limited in the Great Lakes 
due to limited funding opportunities and general uncertainty 
and performance. Can you expand on the current state of 
performance research and perhaps where Congress can be more 
helpful with respect to funding opportunities?
    Dr. Thur. Thank you for the question. I can provide a 
response in a couple of ways. So NOAA has a Regional Integrated 
Science and Assessment Program that works regionally with 
States. And in the Great Lakes specifically they have worked 
with 12 cities within the Great Lakes broader watershed to 
coproduce municipal vulnerability assessments. They are 
attempting to use both Federal resourcing, technical skill, as 
well as funding and local knowledge to determine what can be 
done to manage stormwater through, among other things, nature-
based infrastructure. And one of those municipalities has been 
successful in issuing the first--the largest environmental 
impact bond for $54 million for natural infrastructure within 
their city. And so I think that's an example of how to use 
science and local knowledge to leverage additional non-Federal 
resources through the bond issuance.
    I would also state that in terms of the research gaps, the 
answer that I provided to the previous question, we are funding 
a fair amount of infrastructure investment, but we are not 
coupling that with a mandate to conduct long-term research of 
those projects.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And obviously the long-term 
research component is critical, I think critical, frankly, to 
solving most of our science-based problems. We can't have this 
uncertain funding stream, but to have long-term funding in 
place I think gives your community and everyone a fighting 
chance at solving some of these challenges.
    Dr. Thur, I'm going to stay with you and again focus on 
performance. One of the hurdles facing nature-based 
interventions is the lack of indicators and metrics for 
measuring effectiveness because each project has different 
context-specific factors that can fluctuate over time such as 
financial capital, frequency and intensity of natural hazards, 
and what the local communities themselves consider effective. 
Would simple standardized metrics of nature-based interventions 
help alleviate this problem? Is that even possible given the 
dynamics? And if not, what other alternatives should we 
consider?
    Dr. Thur. Yes, thank you for the question, and it is a 
great one. And it is an area of active research. I think Dr. 
Bridges has mentioned both Atlas and produced some guidelines 
along with many other partners that help practitioners 
understand where--Engineering with Nature solutions may be most 
effective. It is true that there is complete local context for 
the use of these features, but I think it is also the case that 
there can be some specific measures that are incorporated that 
give indications of appropriateness, habitat type or nature-
based feature type. And so I do think it is always going to be 
a combination of higher-level guidance that has some loosely 
used standards, I will say, and some local context and 
implementation because, as you indicated, the contexts are so 
individual-specific.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. Well, a unique set of 
challenges for sure, but I want to thank you again and the 
Chair for holding this hearing and all of our witnesses and 
look forward to supporting your work. Thank you.
    Staff. Chairwoman Sherrill, all Members present have 
completed their first round of questions, so we shall begin a 
second round. And Chairwoman Sherrill, you are recognized.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. I asked for a second round 
of questions because I do have one burning question that always 
plagues me in these hearings. As we heard--we've heard some 
fantastic ideas, some actual projects that have taken place 
that sound like they could be very helpful in some of the towns 
in my district. And I just, as I sit here, wonder, it seems so 
difficult for my local mayors and the local town engineers to 
get access to this information, understand how to implement 
some of these programs, understand the cost-benefit analysis 
that we've been talking, you know, of some of these programs. 
And that's partly why we're holding this hearing, because while 
we've heard some of the green infrastructure can be utilized 
quite well and certainly in a place like New Jersey, the most 
densely populated State in the Nation, we're very careful about 
our land use now and conserving our land and determining the 
balance because of course we always have a lot of development 
going on as well and how we best do that.
    But getting this access to this information and 
understanding how to balance the decisions sounds--it seems 
like my mayors don't have access to this or my town engineers 
don't have access to this. Do any of you have a sense of how 
they might get that access and what we might do better--how we 
might do better to help them?
    Dr. Hunt. I can take this question. Currently, through our 
Partners in Data Innovations with ARS, we are working to not 
only grab that monitoring data information but bring it into 
our servers and stand it up through a decision-support 
informatics platform where we can easily share this 
information, this data, bring in other data from other 
resources, couple it and integrate real-time data with historic 
data that will be accessible to scientists, to stakeholders 
like you mentioned, emergency managers where we can share 
models, where they can ask the expert, for instance. And so, 
yes, ARS is heavily involved in that, and that's a lot of what 
we're doing through collaborations with other Federal agencies, 
with our State dam safety officials, academic institutions to 
bring this to fruition.
    Dr. Thur. If I may----
    Dr. Bridges. [inaudible].
    Chairwoman Sherrill. I think we've lost Dr. Bridges for----
    Dr. Bridges. [inaudible]----
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Dr. Bridges, we've lost your feed a 
little bit. You're in and out.
    Dr. Bridges. [inaudible]----
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Darn it. Dr. Thur, do you want to go 
and maybe we'll try again with Dr. Bridges right after.
    Dr. Thur. Thank you, ma'am. I would say we recognize that 
there are certain things us as a Federal agency are well 
equipped to do, conduct some research, fund some direct 
implementation. We also recognize there are things we may not 
be best positioned to do, and community outreach may be one of 
those. And so within NOAA we fund specific programs that at the 
State level employ specific individuals to do that connection 
to the science at the local level. These include our Sea Grant 
Program, which are present in all of our coastal and Great 
Lakes States, the Regional Integrated Science and Assessment 
Program I mentioned earlier, and even the Coastal Zone 
Management Programs. And so these are State or university 
employees providing--provided funding by NOAA to do just what 
you were asking about.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And finally, Dr. Bridges, 
do you want to try again?
    Dr. Bridges. Can you hear me now?
    Chairwoman Sherrill. I think so.
    Dr. Bridges. Can you hear me now?
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Yes.
    Dr. Bridges. OK. Well, I was emphasizing we made a big 
investment in our public-facing website for Engineering with 
Nature, and using that website actually is a broad repository 
for information about nature-based solutions. We actually 
launched a podcast for engineering you can--you know, you can 
[inaudible] laypeople audiences so that they can be more aware 
of the options that are available to them. And we get a lot of 
feedback. I've been contacted by city engineers before because 
they listened to a podcast that we had.
    So [inaudible] we do need to invest in outreach and be very 
deliberate about that and to share this information to the 
local, regional level. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. And I hear you're in 
God's country, but I don't know which part of New Jersey you 
visited on your trip.
    But without further ado, I will yield to our Ranking Member 
Mrs. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Madam Chairman, I don't have any additional 
questions for the witnesses.
    Chairwoman Sherrill. All right. Well, thank you all for 
indulging me, a fantastic conversation, and I really appreciate 
all of your time. It's been really a wonderful discussion.
    So before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to once 
more thank everybody for your testimony. The record will remain 
open for two weeks for additional statements from the Members 
and for any additional questions the Committee may ask of the 
witnesses. So the witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now 
adjourned. Thank you all so much.
    [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]