[Senate Hearing 112-982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-982
A REVIEW OF THE 2011 FLOODS AND THE CONDITION OF THE NATION'S FLOOD
CONTROL SYSTEMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 18, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-966 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 18, 2011
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California........ 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 7
Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska...... 12
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 12
Grassley, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 13
Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota... 13
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas......... 18
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota... 29
Nelson, Hon. Ben, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska........ 30
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.... 31
Blunt, Hon. Roy, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri......... 41
Hoeven, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota... 45
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, U.S. Representative from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 49
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 56
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 57
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
prepared statement............................................. 182
WITNESSES
Darcy, Hon. Jo Ellen, Assistant Secretary of The Army, Civil
Works; Accompanied By: Major General Michael Walsh, Commander,
Mississippi Valley Division, Brigadier General John Mcmahon,
Commander, Northwest Division, Colonel Christopher Larsen,
Acting Commander, North Atlantic Division...................... 60
Prepared statemen............................................ 63
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 71
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 72
Senator Cardin............................................... 73
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 74
Senator Inhofe............................................... 75
Galloway, Gerald, E., PE., Ph.D., Glenn L. Martin Institute
Professor of Engineering, University of Maryland............... 91
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 104
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe............................................... 108
Larson, Larry A., P.E., CFM, Executive Director, Association of
Floodplain Managers............................................ 111
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 132
Senator Inhofe............................................... 134
Mattelin, Buzz, President, Lower Missouri Coordinated Resource
Management Council; President, Montana Association of
Conservation Districts......................................... 136
Prepared statement........................................... 138
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 141
McGean, Terence J., P.E., City Engineer, Ocean City, Maryland.... 142
Prepared statement........................................... 144
Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........ 148
Lorino, Captain Michael R., Jr., President, Associated Branch
Pilots......................................................... 155
Prepared statement........................................... 157
Dunnigan, Brian, Director, Nebraska Department Of Natural
Resources...................................................... 165
Prepared statement........................................... 167
Wharton, Hon. A.C., Jr., Mayor, City Of Memphis, Tennessee....... 171
Prepared statement........................................... 172
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
American Rivers.............................................. 182
Hon. Jerry Moran, U.S. Senator from the state of Kansas...... 186
Dr. Nicholas Pinter, Professor, Southern Illinois University. 187
Kanasas Water Office......................................... 191
The Nature Conservancy....................................... 193
Brad Lawrence, Director of Public Works...................... 195
Letter from Governors or their representatives of seven states
directly affected by the Missouri River........................ 209
Statements:
Jeff Dooley, Manager, Dakota Dunes Community Imporvement
District................................................... 211
Mayor Laurie R. Gill, Pierre, South Dakota................... 213
Merle Scheiber, on behalf of the Fort Pierre Frontier Road
Residents.................................................. 221
A REVIEW OF THE 2011 FLOODS AND THE CONDITION OF THE NATION'S FLOOD
CONTROL SYSTEMS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
[chairman of the full committee] presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Vitter, Alexander, Johanns, Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The Committee shall come to order.
We are very pleased to have a number of colleagues from off
the Committee here today. I think it shows how important our
work is dealing in preventing floods.
I apologize, the Ranking Member and I are doing some work
on a very important issue on public works. So if there is a
little bit of diversion, please understand.
What we decided was that we would make very brief opening
statements, Senator Inhofe and I, just 3 minutes each, and then
we would start with the members in order of seniority, with
Senator Grassley going, then Senator Conrad, Senators Roberts,
if he is here, Senator Johnson, Senator Nelson. Then on Panel
2, we have Senators Thune, Blunt, Hoeven and Congressman
Carnahan. So that is the plan.
Very quickly, today's hearing will examine how our Nation's
flood control systems responded to the flooding events of 2011.
We need to take a hard look at that response and see where we
can improve our response.
I welcome all the distinguished witnesses here today who
will help give out Committee a picture of what happened, what
worked, what didn't worked. I appreciate Assistant Secretary of
the Army, Jo Ellen Darcy, who is joining us, along with the
Commanders of the three Corps divisions with jurisdiction over
these events: Major General Michael Walsh, from Mississippi
Valley Division; Brigadier General John McMahon, from Northwest
Division; and Colonel Christopher Larsen, with the North
Atlantic Division.
I also welcome all of the local witnesses who made the trip
to D.C. who will bring a very important perspective to us. And
of course, I welcome our Senate colleagues. It is really
unprecedented, Senator Inhofe, how many colleagues are here
today. That is going to move us forward as we look at how to
write a new Water Resources Development Act bill, the new WRDA
bill.
As you know, because of the earmark controversy, we have to
change the way we do this bill. But I want to give good news to
those who are here. Senator Inhofe and I, working with our
staffs, are figuring out how to move forward. We will work with
all of you Senators so that you feel comfortable that we can
meet the needs of your State and still manage to avoid the
pitfalls of the dreaded word, earmark.
Just for the record, speaking for myself, my own view is, I
believe we know what is best for our States. And I am a person
who believes that we should continue doing those legislative
priorities that have been given the name earmark. But we are
not going to get into that today. We are going to figure out a
way to fund WRDA and meet the requirements of the Senate.
So we will be moving forward. Our Nation's flood control
systems require continued investment and improvement. Today's
hearing will help us understand how we are better prepared for
future flood events.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses. This is a
bipartisan moment for this Committee, as is the Highway Bill.
So I know we can work together, and no one makes that happen
better, frankly, than my very good friend, Senator Inhofe. I am
happy to call on him.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do agree with
that. Although Oklahoma has not experienced the same flooding
impact as some of our colleagues on the two panels that will be
before us, the ripple effect of the Mississippi River flood
event impacted my constituents back home.
I think one of the best kept secrets around is that we in
Oklahoma actually are navigable. People don't know that. We
have a navigation way that came all the way up. In fact, my
father-in-law, who I might add was a strong Democrat in the
State legislature, was the author of the bill that established
all of that. So we have always been involved in that. And of
course, anything that affects the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
navigation system affects us.
The Corps is preparing assessment of some of the damage, as
well as formulating estimates of what it will cost to repair
our flood control infrastructure. Madam Chairman, I do have a
lengthier statement which I just want to have as part of the
record. But I want to say that we are both anxious to tackle
two major events. One is the Transportation Reauthorization
Bill and the other is WRDA.
I have to say this also, going back from memory, I think I
was the only conservative that voted against the earmark,
recognizing that when you don't do earmarks, or don't do your
appropriation and your authorization, as Article I, Section 9
of the Constitution tells us to do, then automatically the
President does that. And the President doesn't know what our
needs are in Oklahoma. I am not sure he has ever been to
Oklahoma.
And with that, thank you for having this Committee hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I will let that one go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. So here is where we are. If Members could
make 3 minutes openings, and that is what we are going to ask
all our Senators to do.
Senator Inhofe. We had one member, Jerry Moran wanted to be
here. He can't be here, so I ask that his statement be entered.
Senator Boxer. We will put it into the record at the
appropriate place.
[The prepared statement of Senator Moran was not received
at time of print.]
Senator Boxer. Senator Cardin, you are next. At some point,
I am going to have to hand you the gavel due to my schedule. We
are so thrilled that you chair the appropriate subcommittee on
water, so please go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, thank you very much for
calling this hearing. I think it is an extremely important
hearing, and I want to hear from our colleagues who have
experienced first-hand the incredible challenge we have had on
flooding this year. I am very interested in hearing from our
panel.
I will ask consent that my entire statement be made part of
the record.
But I just want to do share very, very quickly with my
colleagues the effectiveness of the flood control shore erosion
issues in the coast of Maryland that worked very well during
these two storms. We have invested a lot of resources into
protecting the ocean front at Ocean City, Maryland. We have
invested money, but it paid off big time. We saw that during
these past two storms when we had record levels of rainfall and
risk. We had to evacuate Ocean City, but the amount of damage
was kept to a minimum because of the investments that we made
on the sand replenishment and on the dunes.
I might also say that the Susquehanna River was in danger
of severe flooding. We had to evacuate two of our towns. But
once again, the management system worked well.
So Madam Chairman, I will put my entire statement into the
record and I look forward to our witnesses, particularly we
have Terry McGean, who is the engineer for the town of Ocean
City, who will testify on a later panel as to the value we
received from the precautionary work that was done to protect
Ocean City.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johanns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Johanns. Madam Chair, let me start out and just say
also, thank you for holding this very important hearing today.
This is a day for bipartisanship. In fact, it started back
in July when 14 Senators, all 14 Senators along the Missouri
River, sent a letter requesting this hearing. I thank the Chair
and the Ranking Member for honoring the request.
I probably won't soon forget the shock I felt this spring
when it became clear to me that Nebraskans would soon be
dealing with a flood of historic proportions. We had seen
reports of large snow pack on the Rocky Mountains and across
the Great Plains. But then in the last 2 weeks of May, several
State in the Missouri River Basin experienced rainfall at 200,
300 and even 400 percent above average?
Total runoff for 2011 is project to reach almost 230
percent of the normal level and far exceed the 2007 record of
49 million acre feet. Now, no doubt about it, this presented
immense challenges for the Army Corps personnel as they tried
to deal with this situation.
I do want to express my gratitude to the many Federal and
State employees who spent countless hours combating the flood
waters. But it seems clear to me that the river management
system did not work. That is why we are here today. Granted,
the snow pack and rainfall that caused this year's flood was,
no doubt about it, exceptional. But we must now figure out what
changes should be made to protect people's farms, their
livelihoods, their homes. It was only within the last few
weeks, as a matter of fact, that some people even got back to
their homes because they had been underwater.
We could not have expected the Corps to completely mitigate
the effects of these floods. It just wasn't humanly possible.
But it is appropriate to ask what data was available that could
have been used to alleviate the pressure on the flood control
systems earlier this year. To the extent it is feasible, we
should also consider if there is a need for updates to the
master manual's procedures in the annual operating plan.
I will wrap up my comments today by expressing my concern
that notwithstanding the enormous problems we have had over the
last year, it looks like we are headed into another very
difficulty situation in the year ahead, with no changes being
made. So I appreciate the hearing, Madam Chair. I look forward
to the witness testimony.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Alexander.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chair. I also appreciate
the hearing, and welcome our colleagues and those who are
testifying.
My top priority is to do all I can to help the Federal
Government participate in repairing President's Island near
Memphis, as well as other damage near Lake County, which is the
beginning of where the Mississippi River comes down along
Tennessee, because the longer we wait to do that, the more we
endanger the creation of jobs in our region at a time when
unemployment is more than 9 percent. That is my major goal.
Like the other States represented here, we have had some
huge floods the last 2 years. The reason why so many Senators
are here is the Mississippi River and tributary flood control
project is the largest flood control project in the world. We
have had these two phenomenal events in 2010 and 2011. In
Tennessee it was a 1,000 year flood in 2010, and then in 2011
the Corps of Engineers fought this flood for 47 straight days.
Mayor A.C. Wharton is here from Memphis to talk about what
happened there and the importance of our work on President's
Island. But I want to compliment Mayor Wharton and the
leadership of Shelby County and Memphis for their preparedness.
I have not seen a more effective organization in a long time,
that worked hard to avoid damage, rather that just cleanup
after it.
We hope to focus in this hearing on other things we can do
to prevent future damage. I would say to the Corps of Engineers
that the work it did during the flooding event in 2011, insofar
as what we saw in Tennessee, was a very good job. After 2010,
my emphasis to the Corps of Engineers, particularly for the
flooding around Nashville, was to see if we could find a way to
take the Federal agencies and make our warnings about floods as
effective as our warnings about tornado. You can turn on
television and see the tornadoes coming down your road in 13
minutes.
Well, we can't quite do that with rising water. But the
tornado warnings were greatly improved by cooperation from
agencies over the last 10 or 12 years. I think we should work
with the Weather Service and Army Corps and other agencies to
see if we can let the cities and towns and people up and down
the Mississippi River and other areas know when flood waters
are coming.
I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to the
hearing.
Senator Boxer. Senators, we are now ready to hear your
voices and hear your perspectives. We will start with Senator
Grassley. Each of you will have 3 minutes.
Go ahead, Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe,
for your leadership in this area and for holding a very
important hearing because of the devastation from the Missouri
River flood of 2011.
I am going to put a long statement into the record and try
to summarize very quickly.
If you know the history of Pick-Sloan flood projects, they
were for flood control. Now, over the course of several
decades, a Corps manual has been put forward that was finally
finalized in 2006 that would probably try to manage the river
for several reasons beyond flood control, for recreation,
irrigation, municipal water, environmental reasons and for
commerce.
It took about 10 to 15 years to develop that manual that
manages the river and the control structures. It seems to me
that from the devastation that happened this year, you have to
have a revision of the manual to put more emphasis upon flood
control, the original purposes of the structures in the first
place. And since it took a decade or more to develop the manual
that now governs, we have to have, in just a few months, a
revision of that manual that puts emphasis upon flood control.
It is pretty difficult to blame the Corps for what went
wrong when they have so many things to take into consideration.
Flood control is probably very much a minority of the
considerations. With all the damage that has been done to
farming, to homes, to small businesses and everything, it seems
to me we have to start putting people first on consideration in
this manual. Putting people first would be trying to mitigate
the damage that was done by flooding. And not have as much
concern about recreation, irrigation, municipal water,
environment, environmental species, commerce. When you see all
of the damage that was done by this flood, more consideration
has to be given to flood control than has been done in this
manual that now governs. Rewrite the manual and do it very
quickly.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you. We know all of you have
to speak and leave, and we thank you so much for being here.
Senator Conrad.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking
Member Inhofe, for holding the hearing. We very much appreciate
that.
Senator Cardin, thank you for being here, and Senator
Alexander, Senator Johanns. And thank you for your opening
statements, because I think they reflect the concern that all
of us share.
I think it is important to my constituents and certainly to
me that we fully review the events of this last year. Because
something went terribly wrong. The flooding was epic, there is
no doubt about that. In my State of North Dakota, we were hit
by record floods, records that so far exceed anything ever in
recorded history, that you have to wonder what is happening.
I just say to those who are listening, two major river
systems in our State, the Missouri and the Souris, were
affected. This headline from the Minot Daily News really says
it all: Swamped. This is our fourth largest town. In 48 hours,
the level of the flood was increased, the projection, 10 feet.
There is no way you can respond in 48 hours to an increase in
the projection of 10 feet. That is humanly not possible to
defend a town.
A wall of water was headed our way. More than 11,000
residents were evacuated. This is three and a half feet higher
in terms of a flood level than the record recorded flood of
1881. So we are dealing with something that is so far outside
our experience that it is hard to even talk about.
The damage to this town was dramatic. More than 4,000 homes
were inundated for weeks, and many of them just completely
destroyed. Rebuilding this city will take years.
Bismarck, our capital city, and Minot and Mandan, its
sister city, which both straddle the Missouri, were also
affected by record flooding due to historic releases from the
Garrison Dam. For those along the Missouri River, one of the
most frustrating aspects of the problem was the ever-changing
forecast, from a forecast of a release of 110,000 CFS to
ultimately 150,000 CFS, ten times what is normal. This is the
highest releases ever in recorded history.
Flooding of this magnitude had not been seen since the
Garrison Dam became operational. Hundreds of families were
forced from their homes, including two of my own employees, one
of whom will not be back into her home until some time next
year. She and her family have been living in my apartment
because their house is absolutely so badly damaged that they
can't get back.
Here is just one example of the havoc this flood caused. As
you can see, this family, like many others, had built a sandbag
dike around their home. The volume of the water was so powerful
and moved with such speed that it cut a new channel, and it
created a scour hole that claimed this home. Focus in the near
term must be clearly on repairing the damage to flood control
systems. We also need additional Federal support for families
and businesses, so they have some chance to recover.
Many of my constituents are concerned that they will face
another flood next year, because we have record amounts of
water in the system. And the forecast is for more record
rainfall. I believe that requires us to review the operations
of the master manual. Just sticking with what has been done is
not good enough.
Finally, I want to thank very sincerely both General Walsh
and General McMahon for their service, and the service of their
entire team. They did wage truly heroic efforts to defend these
cities and towns. And we will never forget those efforts.
At the same time, I think we would be derelict in our duty
not to recognize that just following the existing master manual
operating instructions is not going to cut it in these
extraordinary weather conditions we confront.
I thank the Committee.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Conrad.
Senator Roberts, we welcome you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you
for leading the effort to hold this hearing, along with my good
friend, Jim Inhofe, who has been on this issue for a
considerable amount of time.
Seventy-nine percent of Kansas is currently experiencing
drought conditions, not flood conditions, but drought
conditions earlier this year. I don't know what we did to
Mother Nature, but she has not acted in a very welcome way.
Starting in May and lasting through September, however,
Kansans living along the Missouri River were engaged in
protecting their property due to record amounts of water.
During that 5-month stretch, four Kansas counties, Donovan,
Atchison, Leavenworth and Wyandott, were about one serious
rainfall away from catastrophe.
As was explained to me, Gavin's Point acts as the spigot,
and this summer, the spigot was wide open. The Corps had little
or no management control, once the water was released from
Gavin's Point. Thankfully, no major rain events occurred,
otherwise I would be sitting in front you discussing the loss
of life and significant property damage.
I say that very humbly, because many Kansans did experience
major property damage, experiencing everything from a local
agricultural seed business and homes and businesses to
agriculture fields were damaged and destroyed, not to mention
the costs endured by local and State government to sandbag and
post National Guard troops on the levees to watch for sand
boils and water overtoppings.
Back in July, I joined my friend and former colleague,
Governor Sam Brownback, on a tour of the flooding, going from
Kansas City to Elwood to Atchison. We visited the first
responders and the government officials, offered assistance.
Time and time again we heard of how the river has been
mismanaged. Now in my view, the 432-page Missouri River master
manual needs to have additional emphasis placed on the top
priority, and that priority is flood control.
I have heard from more than one upset farmer who has had
his field flooded multiple times in the past decade that the
tail is wagging the dog, and too much emphasis has been put on
recreation, fish and wildlife, specifically through a spring
pulse and water quality.
Now, these purpose are congressionally approved. They
should not hinder the primary purpose of flood control. The dog
should not wag its tail, and Congress should ensure the Corps
is putting flood control above all else. That is why earlier
this summer Senator Johanns and I introduced S. 1377, a bill
requiring the Corps to take into account all available
hydrologic data in conducting Missouri River Basin operations.
I know that nobody knows when the next rainfall event will
occur, how much rain will fall in a given amount of time. Nor
will anyone be able to accurately forecast this winter's snow
pack. But we now have a new precipitation record for the upper
Missouri. Congress must ensure this latest data is incorporated
and used in a timely fashion and any and all Army Corps of
Engineer management decisions in order to limit the greatest
extent possible a flood of this year's magnitude from ever
occurring again.
I thank the Chair.
[Prepared statement of Senator Roberts follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson, we are very happy you are here. Please
proceed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking
Member Inhofe, for holding this important hearing to examine
our flood control infrastructure in light of this year's
historic flooding. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some
brief remarks.
Flooding is our Nation's most common form of natural
disaster, and is also the most costly. Though we can never
fully eliminate the risk of flooding, it is crucial that we
continually evaluate the condition of our flood control
infrastructure and the effectiveness of our management
practices.
In South Dakota, we are no strangers to natural disasters.
But this year's Missouri River flooding has been unprecedented
in scope and duration. People have been displaced from their
homes and businesses for months. And they are facing long
months of cleanup ahead. Both utilities and drinking water
infrastructure have suffered significant damage in communities
and on Indian reservations along the Missouri. The economic and
emotional impacts of the flooding have been tremendous.
What has been particularly frustrating for many South
Dakotans is that they are living among some of the largest and
most complex flood control infrastructure in the United States.
South Dakota is home to four of the six mainstream dams and
reservoirs constructed by the Corps of Engineers after passage
of the Flood Control Act of 1944. Built to measure up the
historic flood of 1881, these dams and reservoirs were not
sufficient to accommodate the runoff of 2011.
Management of this system has always created tension in the
Basin. But in light of this year's flooding, concern over river
management is higher than ever. In addition to our physical
infrastructure, we need to consider mitigation and planning
options that can limit damages when flooding occurs.
As Chairman of the Banking Committee, I have been working
with my colleagues to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance
Program, which is the premier means for individuals and
businesses to mitigate their risks of financial loss in the
event of flooding. There are no easy answers, but the issue of
flood control on the Missouri River is vitally important to the
economy and people of South Dakota.
I look forward to working with you to better understand the
risks and improve flood control in the Missouri River Basin.
Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, for
holding this important hearing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
And last but not least on this opening panel, before we
hear from the rest of our colleagues, Senator Ben Nelson.
Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Nelson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and
Ranking Member Inhofe for holding today's hearing.
I am particularly grateful that the Committee has given us
the opportunity to talk about the State's experiences. I
encourage the Committee to very closely examine what led to
such unprecedented flooding and help develop the necessary
procedures so that future events will be less destructive.
In Nebraska, we are still working on getting a full handle
on the total devastation. But FEMA has calculated $180 million
in public assistance. They also, along with the Small Business
Administration, have provided $3.86 million in assistance to
the State for individual assistance.
And the cost isn't just limited to brick and mortar. So
far, USDA's Risk Management Agency has paid out $13 million in
insurance for flooding in Nebraska this year. Farm land from
Boyd and Knox Counties in the north to Nemaha and Richardson
Counties in the southeast has been submerged for many months.
Not only did it cost producers in crops they planted this year,
but damage to the land could potentially keep them from
planting those fields for years to come and perhaps never.
You can rebuild structures, but thousands of acres of land
now silted, silted, silted and destroyed crop land, may never
return to productivity. So to that end, I appreciate the
Committee inviting Brian Dunnigan, Director of the Nebraska
Department of Natural Resources, to discuss the unique
challenges facing our State.
Given the immense long-term and costly damage this flood
has caused, it is necessary for Congress to get answers as to
what went wrong and what steps must we take to avoid such
destruction. I will have the opportunity to visit with
Brigadier General McMahon later this week. But I hope the
Committee takes the opportunity to ask the Corps important
question as, what has been learned from this tragedy, and what
steps will it take to better respond to such record
proportions.
I am deeply concerned with the Corps' 2011-2012 operating
plan, and the Corps' unwillingness to adjust the amount of
water the reserves can hold, in response to last year's runoff.
Doing the same thing this year and hoping for a different
result is not acceptable. If more capacity would have cost less
than the remediation, then perhaps we ought to be talking about
what adjustments we make to the structures themselves.
I also hope the Committee learns more about the Corps'
post-assessment process currently underway. I am aware of your
internal review and the multidisciplinary team of experts. But
I hope the Committee and the staff will explore this process
and this time line.
Finally, I would like to stress the need for expediting the
work that is already underway along the Missouri River levees.
I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for your commitment to
listen to local individuals about what is required in each
State. It is crucial that the Corps gives us a complete
assessment of the damages, the estimated costs and the time
line for repairs to be completed.
I don't want to start a whole discussion again about
climate change. But what we need to consider is that there are
patterns of weather that is changing that we need to be
prepared for those changes in the future, not expecting just to
wait for another thousand years for another epic flood.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator INhofe.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Now we are going to call up our second panel of colleagues:
Senator John Thune, Senator Roy Blunt, Senator John Hoeven and
Congressman Russ Carnahan. We welcome you.
Senators and Congressman, welcome to you all. We know you
have busy days, we understand that. So as soon as you are
complete, feel free to go to your next obligation.
We will start with Senator John Thune. We welcome you.
Senator Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Inhofe,
for holding this important hearing. I appreciate the
examination you are giving to this important issue that has
impacted so many people in my State and across the Country.
Unlike a normal disaster, such as a Hurricane Irene that
occurs in a relatively brief amount of time as waters rise and
then recede, and victims are able to recover and move on with
their lives, the flooding in South Dakota lasted over 90 days,
which displaced individuals and families from their homes and
had tremendous economic impact on businesses and communities
along the Missouri River.
The flood started on Memorial Day and lasted until Labor
Day. Many of those who had their homes damaged or destroyed
never purchased flood insurance because they were told by the
Army Corps of Engineers that their homes were not at risk.
I would categorize the Missouri River flood of 2011 as
something of a hybrid, between a natural disaster and a man-
made disaster. I believe that human error contributed to the
creation of this particular disaster.
We need to understand what human errors and existing
management practices on the Missouri River occurred, so that we
can learn from these mistakes and make adjustments where
necessary to ensure that similar disaster do not occur in the
future.
March 1st is a significant date for the Missouri River dam
system. That is when the system needs to have a required amount
of storage or empty space to be able to accumulate the average
runoff from the winter snow pack. However, the Corps still had
not created all the required amount of empty space in the
system on March 1.
Then throughout the month of March, the empty space that
had been created filled up with runoff that exceeded
expectations. By March 31st, the storage space was erased. The
Oahe reservoir above Pierre and Fort Pierre was nearly seven
feet higher than expected at the end of March. Despite the
rapid increase in inflow during the month of March, the Corps
inexplicably did not accommodate for the additional water by
increasing discharges.
In April, each of the reservoirs were well above expected
elevations, but the Corps did not respond with adequate
discharges to compensate for the incredible inflow during
February and March. This allowed the system to be near maximum
capacity on May 1 and unable to store the May runoff.
The main thing I want this Committee to take away from the
testimony is that the Corps completely failed when it came to
understanding the amount of risk the snow packs contained which
resulted in a cascading series of events that led to a much
more serious flood than would otherwise have occurred. A
fundamental question, I think, that the members of this
Committee need to ask the Corps today is, why didn't they
release more water along the Missouri River dam system in
March, April and early May when they knew they were losing
storage capacity, and that snow pack and inflows were well
above normal capacity?
Corps leadership frequently responds to this type of
question by saying that they would have needed perfect
foresight to predict the massive amount of rain in Montana
during the month of May. But a lot of experts, and even
informed observers, saw early on that severe flooding was
likely coming in the spring and summer. Everybody saw it was
coming and urged action to address the coming deluge, it seems,
except for the Army Corps of Engineers, the entity charged with
managing the river.
It is true that some degree of flooding was going to happen
in South Dakota this summer, regardless of what the Corps did
or didn't do. But the Corps basically thought that they could
fill up the entire amount of empty space in the system by the
beginning of May, gambling that the snow pack was gone and
there would be no significant precipitation in May. Because the
Corps completely miscalculated on the snow pack issue, they
never fully communicated what preparation and to what level was
going to be needed until it was too late.
So I would say, Madam Chair and Senator Inhofe, other
members of the Committee, going forward, flood control needs to
be the top priority for the Corps, particularly in wet cycles.
This is something I believe needs to be modified or reflected
in the master manual which governs the management of the
Missouri River. I fear that the Corps is planning to move
forward under the assumption that this was a one-off event. My
understanding is that they are planning to have the same amount
of storage space in the system next year as they did this year.
I think that is a risky proposition, as we seem to be in a
wet cycle. I hope the Corps will not simply repeat the mistakes
next year or in future years that occurred this year. Keep in
mind, the reservoir system along the Missouri River is not as
capable for the 2012 runoff season as it was this year as a
result of the stress that the system witnessed.
I have said throughout this entire debacle this past summer
that the Corps of Engineers needs to be held to account for
their management of the Missouri River system this year. I hope
that this hearing makes an accountability moment for the Corps.
I have my own statement I would like to submit entirely for the
record. I also would like to build on the record by submitting
written statements that were provided by the mayor of Pierre,
Laurie Gill, South Dakota Insurance Director Merle Scheiber,
whose home was impacted by this, and by the Manager of Dakota
Dunes Community Improvement District, Jeff Dooley, and would
ask that those statements also appear in the record.
I would make one final observation, too. I also want to
include a statement by Brad Lawrence, who is the Public Works
Director for the city of Fort Pierre, who on February 1
predicted a flood of biblical proportions based upon the
research that he had done at that time. His statement, his
narrative I think is very compelling. And when you look at the
arguments, the statements that he was already making at that
early point in the process, it is hard to feature why we ended
up where we were.
Madam Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your Committee this morning.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thune, Laurie Gill,
Merle Scheiber, Jeff Dooley and Brad Lawrence follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Blunt.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Boxer. And thanks to you
and Senator Inhofe for holding this hearing.
Yesterday, October the 16th, the Corps announced that the
Missouri River flood was officially over. Now, we have had lots
of flooding in our State over the years, and usually it is a
few days or a few weeks in April or May. October the 16th, the
Corps announced that the flood was officially over.
This was a flood that started in Senator Baucus' State over
5 months ago. Five months of flooding. In Missouri, we had
significant amounts of the State that were underwater for three
and 4 months. And while no disaster response is perfect, it is
certainly important to learn from the past. I think as Senator
Thune has just mentioned, failing to account for disaster
events or mistakes and dismissing disasters as unlikely to
occur again simply isn't good enough.
Over the past year, Missouri and the entire Country have
faced a number of natural disasters that claimed many lives and
devastated the livelihoods of people in our communities. As we
work to rebuild, there is a lot to be done. Colonel Anthony
Hoffman, the Kansas City Corps Commander, said again yesterday
as he was calling an official in to the flood, that the Corps
has $27.7 million set aside for repairs. At a hearing last
week, Senator Landrieu called, the Corps said they needed $1
billion to bring the river management system back to where it
was at the beginning of this year.
So we have $27 million set aside. We need $1 billion, not
to get the system better than it was in January but just to get
the system back to where it was in January. And of course, as
we look at that, we see counties like Holt County, Missouri,
where 165,000 acres was underwater for most of the summer.
Birds Point, water went in when that floodway was open and went
back out, it was 130,000 acres, not nearly as impacted as the
165,000 in Holt County.
I was there recently, they were able to get, miraculously,
a crop in even though there was lots of early crop loss. But
overall, we had over 400,000 acres underwater at some time this
year. That is about half the size of the entire State of Rhode
Island. And a lot of that 400,000 acres was underwater for
three and 4 months. We haven't ever seen anything like that
before.
As one county commissioner I think well said about the
impact of these floods, which took out interState highways,
county roads, State roads, at one time five bridges over the
Missouri River, where Missouri is on e side of the bridge, were
closed. And as the county commissioner talked about all the
jobs impacted, he just simply said, the factory doesn't get
back to work until the roads are rebuilt. The roads aren't
rebuilt until the flood protection is restored. And the flood
protection is not restored until Congress provides the funding.
So thanks for holding this hearing. I have a statement for
the record, and I will submit it.
[The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you for that cycle of virtue that you
laid out here, because that is key. We are key to the whole
thing here. So thank you very much.
Senator Hoeven.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify this morning. Also to Ranking Member
Inhofe, appreciate it very much.
We had record flooding in North Dakota, record flooding in
our State this year. We had it on the Red River, on the
Cheyenne River, on the James River, on the Missouri River and
on the Souris River. In Minot, for example, which is on the
Souris River, and again, managed by the Corps, we had 4,00
homes that were either completely destroyed or partially
destroyed. According to FEMA, it is now one of their largest
housing efforts, just in the community of Minot, to get people
into housing before winter comes. I think they said it is
something like their third largest housing effort after Katrina
and Ike. That is just one example. That is what we are facing.
In the case of Minot, clearly we are working with the Corps
now, and the other agencies, to not only rebuild the defenses,
but we need to see specifically from the Corps what their plan
is going to be. We are working with Colonel Price, who is the
Commander of the St. Paul District, on a flood protection plan
for next year to make sure that we don't have a repeat in that
community of the kind of flooding we had this year, if we
continue to have the kind of wet conditions that we are having
right now.
In Bismarck-Mandan, same thing. As Senator Thune just
mentioned, as Senator Conrad mentioned earlier and as others
have already commented on, we are in a wet cycle. Now, how the
Corps manages the river, in this case the Missouri River, in a
wet cycle has got to be different than how they manage the
river in a drought cycle. What it appears they are doing is
they are going back to an average year every year, saying, OK,
every year is average, and we go from there.
But that is not the case. When we were in the drought
cycle, at which time I was Governor in North Dakota, every year
they would say, well, this is going to be an average year, and
they would let out the same amount of water. But we were in a
drought. They needed to conserve water. They weren't conserving
enough water.
Now we are in a wet cycle. For the last 5 years, it has
gotten wetter each year in our part of the Country. But they go
back to an average year. We are in a wet cycle, they need to
let more water out, they need to adjust based on the conditions
on the ground. That needs to be reflected in the master manual
when we talk about flood protection.
Specifically this year, the North Dakota State Water
Commission is recommending that Lake Sakakawea, the largest
reservoir we have on the lake be brought down another two and a
half feet. I am submitting my written testimony and I have
specific questions in that testimony. But we are asking the
Corps to reduce the reservoir another two and a half feet to
create more storage capacity. That can be done now without
downstream impacts.
Who makes that decision, when do they make it? We need this
type of accountability. And if they don't let out that
additional water now, we need to have them show us specifically
how they will provide protection next spring with the kind of
precipitation we are having now throughout the river basin.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hoeven follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much for your
testimony. It was very compelling.
On this panel, our last speaker, and we are so delighted to
see Congressman Carnahan here.
As soon as he finishes, I am going to ask Senator Baucus to
make his opening statement and then we are going to have Hon.
Jo Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, come up with her Generals. We look forward to that.
Congressman, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSS CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED
STATES CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe. It is really an honor to be here with your colleagues
on this critical issue, important to the folks that we
represent in Missouri.
I especially appreciate your remarks about this being
bipartisan, and I am certainly glad to be here with my Senator,
Senator Blunt, this morning, to really show the bipartisan
support for this work in Missouri.
We are very familiar with the majesty and the might of our
great rivers in Missouri. But the Mississippi and Missouri
River floods in April and May of this year were among the
largest and most damaging on record. During just the last half
of May, the upper Missouri River Basin received nearly a year's
worth of rainfall.
On May 3d, the Army Corps of Engineers made the
extraordinary and excruciating decision to blow up a section of
the Bird's Point Levee in southeast Missouri, submerging about
130,000 acres of farmland to ease flood threats to Kentucky and
Illinois river towns. The physical damages to levees and river
control structures from these floods is estimated to be at $2
million thus far, not counting the millions of dollars to lost
crops, homes and lives.
Many of the agricultural fields are still in the process of
drying out. The people of Missouri are still in the process of
rebuilding their lives, and still, they need the help of local,
State and Federal resources. Unfortunately, our House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has yet to hold a
hearing like this. We have, although, organized a briefing for
our colleagues in the House back in July to review the status
of these issues.
We heard from many experts at the briefing we had there.
But perhaps the most illuminating was the experience of Richard
Oswald from Atchison County, Missouri. His home, built by his
parents, was flooded for a third time in his life because of
the failure of the levee and reservoir system. Mr. Oswald could
not return to his home for months. His crop was ruined, the
economy of his 1,200 person town devastated. His story was
repeated countless times across the State.
In southern Jefferson County, construction projects have
been delayed, commerce altered, property damaged, marinas and
river fronts ruined and well and sewage systems compromised.
These floods are some of the largest hydrologic events since
the great flood of 1927. We should take the opportunity to
learn from it and rethink our priorities along the river and
how we manage our reservoirs and our levees. We need to reach
out to our local officials and members affected in their
communities to help in predicting when and where the flooding
will occur, providing relief support and where possible,
helping with preventive measures. We need to take this
information and revisit the Missouri River master manual and
see if it needs revision based on these lessons learned.
In my extended remarks, I have detailed the framework for
that review. We also need to address the issue of funding. The
lack of funding has stressed the Army Corps' capacity to meet
our Nation's water resources needs. We must ask the tough
questions so we can learn from these events. How will the
Country and Corps pay for the repairs? How will we prioritize
where we repair infrastructure for pre-flood conditions? And
where do we have to rethink our infrastructure and change how
we manage our river conditions.
I believe the Congress must find a way to ensure these
repairs are done properly, expeditiously and not at the expense
of other projects. I look forward to working with you on these
issues in the months ahead to ensure that both sides of
Congress learn from and better prepare for the future on these
events.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Congressman.
Senator Baucus, we are delighted that you could be here. We
know heavy is the head that wears the crown of the Super
Committee and the Finance Committee and the Subcommittee here.
So we welcome you. Thank you for being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer, for
holding this hearing.
I would also like to welcome Buzz Mattelin from
northeastern Montana. Buzz is going to be on the second panel.
He is exactly the kind of person that we need, he has been
around for a good number of years, several generations, lots of
common sense and experience, a lot of rises and ebbs and flows
of the rivers in Montana.
Let me just say a couple of things about this subject. I
will open by saying, Madam Chairman and others, I have for
years, years, worked very hard, tried very hard to convince the
Army Corps of Engineers that they should change their master
manual in the other direction. Army Corps of Engineers studies
show, and have shown for a long time, that the economic value
of the upstream States, Montana especially, is about ten times
the economic value of the river downstream. Downstream is barge
traffic. Downstream States, especially the State of Missouri,
pushed, pushed, pushed, to keep more water, get more water out
of the Fort Peck Reservoir and upstream reservoirs for the
barge industry downstream. You have no idea how hard they
pushed, and you have no idea how hard it was for us in upstream
States to save, save some of the water in the Missouri River,
Fort Peck Reservoir and other upstream reservoirs.
I have a photograph that shows a dock on Fort Peck
Reservoir is a mile from shore, because there is no water.
There is no water. It has hurt irrigation because there is no
water. I almost gave up the ghost, just gave up. I have been
trying for 20 years, 30 years, along with other Senators in
North Dakota and South Dakota, Senator Conrad especially and
Senator Dorgan, to try to get the Corps of Engineers to not
force us upstream to let so much water out. That has been going
on for years.
Now, we have a flood. It is terrible. There is a flood
downstream, it is terrible. But my main point here is, let's be
careful. The Army Corps of Engineers studies all this stuff and
tries to figure out what the proper balance should be and how
much water should be kept and how much water not kept and so
forth. I find it a little strange that suddenly, I know the
reason because the floods are devastating, it is terrible, but
now they come at exactly the opposite message, earlier they
want water, want water, want water. This year, no water, no
water, no water.
I mean, it is just the opposite. They don't tell you that.
They don't tell you what the last 3 year history has been as
they asked for more and more and more water.
And frankly, this is a difficult subject. To the degree one
believes in climate change, and I do, scientists will say that
with increased climate change in this world, there is greater
volatility in weather and the cycles are shorter. I remember
Dr. Hanson 20 years ago predicted that in a hearing over in the
Interior Committee. It was very, very compelling testimony he
gave. That I think is what is happening now. You have years,
sometimes you get wet years, sometimes you get dry years. Look
at Texas, it is in drought, and Oklahoma in drought. Eastern
Montana, drought. It is just very spotty, it changes.
I believe there is going to be increased volatility in
weather cycles. I think that the compression is going to be
shorter, and we are going to have years where it rains a lot,
and where there is a lot of snow pack. But we can't willy nilly
just turn off the dams and turn them on, just to try to control
it. A lot of these floods are not in the Missouri River, a lot
of these floods that we have mentioned today. The Souris River,
for example, in Minot, has devastated Minot, North Dakota. It
has nothing to do with Missouri.
But there are Missouri floods, no doubt. One might say,
Madam Chairman, I have one book on my bed stand I want to read,
never read it, it is the 1927 flood. I am told it is a great
book and I want to read that book. But it just gives one a
sense, too, what the floods were back in that era.
Now, the Corps of Engineers has told my office, I don't
know if this is in print, they told my office that a recurrence
of a flood of this magnitude is about .2 percent. This is a 500
year flood. Now, we haven't kept records for 500 years, so it
is kind of hard to predict whether it is a 500 year flood or
not. But they have told us privately, maybe it is in print, I
don't know, that it has .2 percent chance of recurrence.
So I hear it said here, clearly, the Corps should manage
the dams. It is in the Corps' jurisdiction appropriately and
fairly and so on and so forth. But in the master manual,
recreation has been listed as a priority, as has environmental
protection and so on and so forth. Then just suddenly, somebody
is, oh, no, have to change the master manual today, I think
would probably in the long period of history, result in Fort
Peck Lake being back down to this low, low, low levels again
because the water is out again.
You have to look at fisheries, you have to look at the
Endangered Species Act. There are so many factors here. I just
urge the Corps to be very careful and not react to the exigency
of the moment, when actually this stuff changes.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you. That was sobering
testimony and reality. I thought you summed it up really well,
and thank you for being here.
Senator Boozman, would you like to make an opening
statement before we call the Assistant Secretary?
Senator Boozman. If it is appropriate. I promise I will be
brief.
Senator Boxer. It surely is.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do appreciate
your holding the hearing today.
Throughout our history, the mighty Mississippi and her
tributaries have brought commerce and opportunity to Arkansas.
But sometimes the river brings great challenges to our delta as
well. This year's flood provided a great test.
Let me start by thanking the many people in Arkansas and
throughout the Mississippi River Valley who worked night and
day to fight the flood. These included private individuals as
well as State, local and Federal officials, personnel from
throughout the Corps, including from the Little Rock, Memphis
and Vicksburg districts, showed tremendous dedication and
professionalism under very challenging circumstances.
The conditions that led to this year's events were very
similar to the major Mississippi floods of the 20th century,
including the great flood of 1927. Our Country should be very
proud that the investment made over the decades led to a far
different outcome. While there was a great suffering this year,
we should be proud of the progress that has been made.
For decades, we have been building, operating and
maintaining the Mississippi River and Tributaries project. This
project is made up of levees, floodways, channel improvements
and stabilization of other structures, such as dams. This year
alone, the MR&T project helped to protect more than 10 million
acres and nearly 1 million structures, while preventing more
than $110 billion in damages.
Over the decades, our Country has invested approximately
$13.9 billion and yet the project has directly prevented $350
billion in flood damages. In total the return on investment is
a tremendous 34 to 1.
I recognize that today's hearing is broad and that we will
hear from witnesses impacted by the floods as well as witnesses
from the Mississippi River Valley. I see this as an opportunity
to learn what went right and what went wrong and how to improve
our system and our plans for the next time.
With that I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
We are going to call our next panel up. The Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Jo Ellen Darcy,
accompanied by Major General Walsh, Brigadier General McMahon,
Colonel Larsen. While you are getting seated, Senator Inhofe
has asked to respond to some comments of Senator Baucus, and I
have urged Senator Baucus to stay here just in case we want to
have a little back and forth on this before we turn to Jo Ellen
Darcy.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I know it is difficult for people to resist the temptation
to try to draw events in the weather that are taking place,
maybe in this year or this week, to the global warming
argument. So what I have is three short statements, a sentence
on each one, from three alarmists that you know very well and
have been on your side of this issue, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Alarmists from your side or my side?
Senator Inhofe. Your side.
Senator Boxer. My alarmists.
Senator Inhofe. Judith Curry, the Chair of Georgia
Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, keep in mind, an alarmist, said ``I have been
completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen
that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of
extreme weather events or statistics of extreme weather events,
to anthropogenic forcing.'
Second is Myles Allen, head of the Climate and Dynamics
Group, the University of Oxford. That was the one that got a
lot of publicity back during the Climate Gate. He said ``When
Al Gore said last week that scientists now have clear proof
that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme in
devastating floods, storms and droughts that displaced millions
of people this year, my heart sank.'
And last, Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor of Environmental
Studies, University of Colorado, said ``To suggest that
particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate
change is not just wrong, but wrong-headed.' Now, he goes on,
and I would ask unanimous consent to submit the rest of his
statement, because it emphasizes that.
Senator Boxer. Sure.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Well, I am going to respond in this way. We have worked
closely together on infrastructure, and we don't' work closely
together on climate change. So for the record, let me say, I
don't know anyone who is blaming what happened on climate
change. I do know this, that that is exactly what the climate
scientists warned us about. We do have eyes. We do see what we
see.
So here is the thing. Of course we don't know whether this
is climate change. It takes a decade. It is not about the
weather. It is not about day to day. One day we are going to
see it very warm in the winter, I assure you, and 1 day we are
going to see it very cold.
The last time it was cold, it was cold somewhere here, I
remember, I think you built an igloo outside and invited Al
Gore to come there. In the meantime, we were supposed to have
the Olympics, the Winter Olympics. It was so hot up there, that
they had to import snow.
The bottom line is, we don't know now. We will only know
looking back on the decade. So I do agree with what they are
saying and I do agree with what you are saying. Because I don't
think that on our side, we are alarmists. I think what we are
saying is, keep an eye on this. This is what it looks like is
happening. But you can't really tell until you get a decade
out.
I hope that this, we are not going to ask any of our
panelists to respond to the issue of climate change. This was
my colleague giving his opinion, which I value greatly. Because
Max Baucus doesn't say things without a lot of thought.
But so be it. We are divided on the panel. We have to
accept that.
Senator Inhofe. I would also comment that two of Al Gore's
speeches in New York were canceled because of snow storms up
there, too. I think we are pretty much in agreement on that.
Senator Boxer. Yes. Extreme weather is what was predicted.
We will now turn to our non-controversial panel. We are
very happy to see Jo Ellen Darcy here, we have known so long
and well. She worked for Senator Baucus for a long time. Now
she is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. And
she has an excellent team with her. Would you proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. JO ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY, CIVIL WORKS; ACCOMPANIED BY: MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL WALSH,
COMMANDER, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION, BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN
McMAHON, COMMANDER, NORTHWEST DIVISION, COLONEL CHRISTOPHER
LARSEN, ACTING COMMANDER, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Baucus, members of
the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to testify on the
2011 flood events and to discuss the condition of the Nation's
flood control systems.
I am joined today by Major General Mike Walsh, who is the
Commander of our Mississippi Valley Division and also the
President of the Mississippi River Commission; Brigadier
General John McMahon, who is the Commander of the Northwest
Division; and Colonel Christopher Larsen, who is the Acting
Commander for the North Atlantic Division.
Two thousand and 11 has been extremely challenging for the
Nation in terms of natural disasters across multi-State areas.
My testimony today will cover three events in which the Corps
was greatly involved: the flooding on the Mississippi River,
the flooding on the Missouri River and the flooding caused by
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. These are not the only
events in which the Corps responded and assisted. Others
include tornadoes in Alabama and Missouri and flooding on the
Souris River.
This year the Corps supplemented State, local and tribal
efforts with over 37 million sandbags, 342 pumps, 5,500 rolls
of poly sheeting, 275 linear feet of HESCO barriers and 1,280
linear feet of rapid deployment flood wall, and issued 176
emergency contracts to protect critical infrastructure from
flood threats.
During the 1927 flood, the Mississippi River Valley region
had a haphazard system of public and private levees, trying to
confine the river within a levee system. The result was 72
percent of the lower valley was underwater. More than 26,000
square miles were flooded, 500 people were dead, and another
700,000 were left homeless.
After the 1927 flood, the Nation authorized and funded the
Mississippi River and Tributary System that includes levees,
supplemented by reservoirs, floodways, backwater areas and
channel improvements. During this year's 2011 flood event,
flood flows were greater than those experienced during the 1927
flood. But because of the MR&T project, only 38 percent of the
area that flooded in 1927 flooded in 2011. Not a single life
was lost in this historic flood event.
The Bird's Point New Madrid Floodway was operated on May
2d, 2011, and opening the two additional floodways was
synchronized to manage the flows in the Mississippi River
Basin, preventing flooding of over 9.9 million acres and
preventing damages in excess of $60 billion. For the first
time, three of the system's floodways were placed in
simultaneous operation to help relieve the enormous stress on
the levee system and to reduce the danger to people, their
homes and businesses. Over 800 personnel were engaged with more
than $76 million of funds allocated and over $59 million in
FEMA money for missions that they assigned to the Corps under
the Stafford Act.
The watershed approached was used to keep the system
intact, and a watershed approach will be needed to repair and
restore it as well. The Corps invited seven States and ten
Federal agencies to help set priorities and plan a
comprehensive approach to restoring the flood protection
system. All of us share responsibility in the recovery efforts.
By pooling our resource, our talents and our expertise, we will
focus on key elements that protect the lives and the
livelihoods of million of Americans.
The flooding along the Missouri River this year
approximately doubled the historic record for waterflows. The
combined May through July runoff of 34.3 million acre feet made
2011 an historic year of record for reservoir water storage
along the Missouri River. Flood response efforts engaged over
400 personnel and cost $83 million.
Actions by the Omaha and the Kansas City Districts during
the Missouri River flooding this summer were extremely
effective in reducing flood damages. The Corps fortified
levees, built temporary levees, monitored dam and levee safety
and other activities such as providing flood fight supplies to
State emergency offices. For example, in South Dakota, the
Corps constructed approximately four miles of temporary levees
at Pierre and Fort Pierre and approximately 1.5 miles of
temporary levees in the community of Dakota Dunes.
Now that the river has receded, the Northwest Division is
initiating post-flood actions including inspecting, assessing
and repairing damaged levees and dams, assessing the operation
of the Missouri River dams and reservoirs during the flood,
including an independent external review now underway in
completing technical review of the flood fight response.
In late August and early September, extreme weather
conditions continued, this time centered in the northeastern
section of the Nation. Hurricane Irene traveled along the
Atlantic Coast, impacting the entire area from coastal North
Carolina to Maine. Just a week later, the remnants of Tropical
Storm Lee tracked up from the Gulf and severely flooded
northeastern Pennsylvania and the lower southern tier of New
York State.
Although flood damages in the area were devastating, in
many areas where Corps projects exist, their operation by the
Corps effectively reduced an additional estimated $6 billion of
damage to the residents of the northeast. The Corps continues
to assess the extent of the damages to civil works projects and
non-Federal projects that are eligible for assistance under
what is called our Public Law 84-99 program.
The Corps first used $46.6 million of our available funds
within our flood control and coastal emergencies account for
immediate flood-fighting and response to the spring flooding.
As the flood events continued, the Corps was unable to respond
to the requirements from our available flood control funds.
Since May 2011, I have exercised my emergency authority
provided under Public Law 84-99 to transfer funds from other
appropriations accounts to the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies Appropriations account, in order to respond to the
flooding and to begin addressing repairs from the ongoing
disasters. To date, I have authorized four transfers totaling
$212 million. The last transfer of $137 million allowed the
Corps to begin addressing a portion of the highest priority
life and safety repair requirements.
The Corps has set up a rigorous process of headquarters-
level for technical experts to examine the requirements and to
prioritize those requirements based on risks to life and
safety, among other parameters, in order to make the best use
of available funds. I expect to have to authorize additional
transfers of funds from other Corps accounts to the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergency account in order to address the
ongoing emergency needs.
In conclusion, the Corps stands ready to respond to and
assist in any recovery effort disaster as they occur.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Just so everyone knows, I will take my 5 minutes. Then I am
going to hand the gavel over to Senator Cardin, who is going to
conclude this hearing. Senator Inhofe will speak after I do. We
will go back and forth in order of arrival.
So Secretary Darcy, the Corps is now facing the daunting
task of evaluating the condition of infrastructure after these
dramatic 2011 flood events. Does the Corps have adequate
authority to undertake all of the work it believes will need to
be done, or will added authority be needed through a WRDA bill
to facilitate some of the post-event work that will be needed?
Ms. Darcy. At this time, Senator, I don't believe we need
additional authority. We are challenged by funding.
Senator Boxer. All right. So would you let us know, after
you discuss this with your Generals and your Colonel, if we do
in fact have to change any of the laws through the WRDA
process? And obviously the problem of funding is there.
Our hearing today focuses on three historic flood events in
2011. Each of these events was unique, and the Federal response
to each event was different. I have spoken to people in the
Corps and I will tell you, some of those challenges were
extraordinary, and some of the responses were very, very, very
tough, particularly Major General Walsh, we watched what you
had to do. It was really tough to tell people who had had these
farms for a long time, you are just going to have to work with
us here, because we need some place for this water to go. I
know how hard that was on you and your team. I am sure others
were facing very similar conflicts.
So it is so important that we learn from the successes and
the failures. So I would say, Ms. Darcy, in your analysis, what
are the most important lessons that we have learned from the
2011 floods?
Ms. Darcy. I think one of the most important lessons we
learned was the coordination and communication that we had, not
only within the Federal agencies, but with the local
governments. We also had a joint command center, one for the
Mississippi floods and one for the Missouri floods, that we had
daily updates not only from NOAA and the Weather Service but
also the local communities as far as what we could expect that
day. I think the communication was great.
And also, General Walsh and General McMahon have now, as a
result of the floods, set up task forces for response as to how
we will work with our stakeholders to determine what we can do
to repair what damage has been done.
Senator Boxer. Did anything go wrong that you want to work
on?
Ms. Darcy. I don't want to every say we didn't do anything
wrong, but I think what we did do was operate the system as it
was designed to work. And by going with the design of the MR&T
system, as well as operating the Missouri River as designed,
with our flood control dams, that they did work as designed.
Senator Boxer. I am going to leave it to others to ask
about the manual. Thank you all so much for your heroic
efforts. Obviously, we have to, I hope, find the Resources.
Because just like the roads, we can't have a strong economy if
people are stuck, without homes, without businesses. It is a
nightmare. So we have to work on this.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. I will do the same thing as the
Chairman and I have had a chance to visit with Secretary Darcy.
Let me first of all compliment you and thank you for the
time that you spent helping us out of a situation, and I do
appreciate it very much.
The rest of you, you heard the question the Chairman asked,
what lessons were learned. Do the other three of you want to
make any comments in terms of lessons learned as a result of
this?
General Walsh. Yes, Senator. As the President of the
Mississippi River Commission, I think one fo the key items that
we learned is systems thinking works, systems investment works
and systems leadership works. As Senator Boozman had mentioned,
the Mississippi River Tributaries project, the Nation has
invested $13.9 billion putting that system together. And while
it was only 89 percent complete, the system did work. As you
heard, in 1927, 500 people were killed. And in this flood,
which was much larger, there were zero fatalities.
So I think systems thinking, systems investment, and
systems leadership was very key in fighting the flood on the
Mississippi River. I do have a statement from the Mississippi
River Commission.
Senator Inhofe. OK, the other two pretty much agree with
what he said there.
I was asked to ask some questions, actually there are
seven, there won't be time for that. I will ask two of the
seven that were requested by Senator Thune. First of all, why
didn't the Corps release more water in March, April and early
May, when they knew they were losing storage capacity and the
snow pack and inflows were well above normal?
General McMahon. Senator, thank you for the question.
We watched the snow pack accumulate very closely. As we did
that, the snow pack in the Plains was melting. That is a
restriction that we have to contend with on the Missouri,
because through the months of January through about the middle
of April, there is ice on the river. So while the snow pack in
the Plains is melting, the ice on the river restricts the
amount of water we can release from the reservoirs. So that is
a compounding fact that we have to deal with each and every
year.
We did watch the snow in the mountains accumulate, and we
were increasing releases each month accordingly to accommodate
and make the space for the growing snow pack in the mountains.
What we did not anticipate, of course, is the rain that has
been alluded to, that began in the middle of May. May was the
third highest month on record for runoff in the upper basin.
June was the first, and July was the fifth highest.
So three consecutive months of rain just was the wild card
that we did not anticipate, nobody could have anticipated. That
is what caused us to increase releases, up to 160,000 cubic
feet per second out of Gavin's Point and subsequently, the
damage that has accrued since then. It has been a 5-month long
event, as has been mentioned.
But we were doing, I think, taking prudent actions on the
basis of the information we had at the time. And I think the
independent external panel that has been formed will look into
all these matters, and either validate or challenge the
decisions that we have made. I look forward to the outcome of
that report in December, sir.
Senator Inhofe. All right. The other six of the questions
that would be asked by Senator Thune, Mr. Chairman, I am going
to submit for answers in the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Cardin.
[Presiding] Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Darcy, when you last appeared here, I asked you
if the Corps had reassessed its decision not to pay for
certification of levees. You said you would take that under
consideration. You would consider reassessing that decision not
to pay.
Can you tell me now the results of that reassessment?
Ms. Darcy. The reassessment, the results are that we will
continue to not to be able to pay for the assessments or the
certifications of the levees. As everyone knows, we have
incredible budget constraints. It is just one of the mission
areas that we will not be able to fulfill.
Senator Baucus. Do you have a sense of the hardship that
causes these communities, Miles City, Glendive, Great Falls?
Many communities that have to have floodplain maps, and to get
the maps they have to have the levees certified. Earlier, I
think it was prior to 2008, the Corps did pay for
certification. Then suddenly, the Corps withdrew the
certification, leaving these communities--no pun--high and dry
in their inability to have the Resources to make sure they get
certification of the levees so that maps can delineate and so
that people can know they can live in an area that has a
certified levee.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, what we are doing is working with FEMA
to try to better coordinate the timing of when their maps are
redone and when the certification for their flood insurance
program would be required. We also are providing information
from our inspections. We do an annual inspection and an
inspection every 5 years of levees that are in the Corps
program. We provide that information to the local levee board
or the local sponsor for that levee.
We also have developed a national levee data base. That is
now up and running, so that anyone can plug in their zip code
and find out where a levee is and what its condition is. So we
are providing more information to the locals.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. But I urge you to go
back and reconsider. Because prior to 2008, the Corps did pay
for certification. And as these levees were built, communities
relied on them and the Corps pulled the plug. I just urge you
to go back and try to find some accommodation, here, at the
very least, in financing certification. It is getting
expensive, and these small communities just can't afford it.
Ms. Darcy. We will look at it again, Senator.
Senator Baucus. I am serious, both of us, you can't beat
something with nothing. So try to find some compromise, some
something. Maybe you can draw the line somewhere that makes
some sense, that helps out to some degree. And I will do the
same.
I have introduced legislation, as you know, giving the
Corps authority and directing the Corps to pay for the
certification. We just have to find some--we can't stonewall.
All these levees, stonewalls and pulling the plug and so forth,
but you know what I am getting at. We have to go back. I
appreciate that.
I would just like to ask a general question about these
floods. I don't mean to be too provocative here, but it struck
me that one of the reasons there is so much flooding, it is not
just rainfall and snow pack. All the dams and levees that have
been built along the Missouri and Mississippi have caused
channeling, which has caused the river to not flow out into
wetlands, caused the river to be faster, more violent, more
force. And it raises many, many questions about floodplain
insurance and where people should live and not live, and
whether we keep wetlands or not. The wetlands in the delta, I
am told, are very important to wildlife and fisheries and so
forth. Then the delta gets flooded out, and I have a hunch, I
don't know, I could be dead wrong, that some of this channeling
reduces some of the wetlands in the Mississippi Delta as well.
Could you or any of your experts comment on the degree to
which channeling does exacerbate the problem here of flooding?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I will take a stab and then I think
General Walsh would like to respond as well.
We are currently looking at some of the impacts of the
projects on wetlands. In particular, in Louisiana, we are
looking at some possible diversion projects that could take
some of the sand and the sediments out of the river for
wetlands restoration. So it is, there is some impact from when
you try to tame a river. There is going to be impacts from what
it is you are doing, from that channelization.
Senator Baucus. Could you comment on the master manual? It
is a subject of huge controversy. Senators from various States
have looked at it and talked to the Corps about it many times,
including myself.
Ms. Darcy. Right.
Senator Baucus. And over many years. My sense is that we
should be careful here, before changing the provisions of the
master manual.
As I listen to you, it sounds like you have considerable
discretionary authority, the Corps does, to account for
emergencies as we experienced this year.
Ms. Darcy. We do, ion the Missouri River master manual,
there is some provision for emergency. However, revisions of
the master manual need to go through a public process. As you
may recall, Senator, the last time we revised the Missouri
River master manual, it took 14 years and $33 million.
Senator Baucus. I recall that. It was very frustrating.
Because just as the panel ahead of you wants to change the
manual for their reasons, I back then during that period, would
like to see the manual changed to protect upstream recreation.
Again, the Corps had a study back then that showed that the
economic value of the upstream recreation far outweighed the
economic value of managing the dams and the river for barge
traffic downstream. Far outweighed it, I guess ten-fold,
something like that. And we have been working on this for years
and years and years.
I don't know, 14 years sounds like a long time to change a
master manual. But I do agree with an implication in your
response, namely that the master manual cannot be changed willy
nilly. It takes time and thought to look at lots of different
factors to decide what the proper balance should be.
Ms. Darcy. That is correct. As I said, the public process
needs to be involved in any changes to it. As I said earlier,
and General McMahon alluded to the fact that this external
panel is currently looking at how the operations were doing
during this flood event. Whatever recommendations they have, we
will consider.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Senator Cardin. Senator Johanns?
Senator Johanns. Let me just thank all of you for being
here today.
Let me, if I might, in my questions, focus on kind of what
we are anticipating as we think about this winter and going
into next spring. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me
that the conditions are, No. 1, the capacity in the system is
about where it was a year ago. Second, it appears to me that
throughout the whole stretch of the system, we have had some
unusually wet weather. The third thing that occurs to me is
that current, it is anticipated currently that the releases
will not significantly increase. In fact, they are going to be
held level for the foreseeable future, at least into next year.
All of this leads me to believe, and there are probably
some things that I am not mentioning, but all of this leads me
to be live that we are kind of working our way right back to
where we were a year ago, and any circumstance, heavier snow
melt, heavy rain, will put us right back to where we were.
Maybe General McMahon, we will start with you. Where am I
wrong about this?
General McMahon. Senator, thank you for the question. It is
packed full of information, background information that is
relevant here to understand it, as you are alluding to.
First of all, looking at the way ahead, the system is more
vulnerable next year now than it was last year. So we have to
be very careful, to use Senator Baucus' words, insofar as how
we take advantage of the time between now and when the runoff
season begins on the first of March, 2012.
We made a conscious decision at the end of July, and I made
the rounds on the Hill here, and touched based with you and
many of your colleagues on this very critical decision point,
which was we decided we needed to evacuate the 16.3 million
acre feet of water that has been the system design since the
system was built, because to do more, to evacuate more water,
would take away the time that we needed to get the water out of
the floodplain, out of farms, out of homes, out of businesses,
for people to get back in there and begin the repair and the
reconstitution, if you will, as well as for the Corps, for
Federal highways, for States, counties and cities to do the
very same thing, to get into their infrastructure and inspect
and begin the repair process.
If we were to evacuate more water and create more space in
the reservoir this year, we would not have given ourselves even
that opportunity for the water to drain and for the inspection
and repair process to begin. That was a very hard decision, a
delicate decision that had to be made because of the huge
volumes of water that needed to be evacuated, and only
evacuated because of the release rates and the time available.
We are now past that point. Now we have seen, finally, the
declaration of the end of flood has occurred just yesterday,
that was mentioned. So now, we are at the point where
inspections are beginning in earnest, and the repairs can
begin. All contingent on the funding. And as has been alluded,
we have moved money inside the Corps to get that repair process
jump started and the inspection process jump started. That is
going well.
But we are going to quickly come to a point in time where
the funding is going to be the big constraint, in addition to
the time available. But given the vulnerabilities that we have
in the system next year, we have to get on with the repairs.
That was the tradeoff that we made. We decided that we needed
to evacuate back to the amount of water that we normally have.
Now with respect to other evidence of why that is a prudent
decision. We look at the climatological prediction center, the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's center
of expertise for predicting weather, both near and long-term.
They tell us that this next, the remainder of 2011 and 2012,
there are equal chances of normal, above and below normal
weather patterns. We have a La Nina effect, which for the
Missouri River Basin means cooler temperatures but it is very
hard to correlate precipitation, both snow pack and rain, on
the basis of a La Nina phenomena.
So all that evidence points to, and the fact that this is
approximately a one in 500 year event, very low likelihood of
occurring again. And again, it is not an improbability, but it
is a low probability. That is the world that we are in. Nobody
can see the future here, as you well know. So given all that
evidence, it made sense to us to evacuate the water to 6.3
million acre feet of space, and to take advantage of the time
available, pending funding, to get on with the repairs and
reduce the vulnerabilities that exist in the system, as much as
we can between now and the first of March.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse will inquire.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
Ms. Darcy, you were last here in March. After you came, I
asked questions for the record. And we never got an answer to
them. I don't know why. It has been quite a while and they were
quite simple questions.
One was, how much funding is currently available for
Section 205 projects. I assume somebody in the Corps actually
knows that number and it is just a question of sending an email
over to us.
The other is whether this funding will allow for any new
projects to be initiated, or whether it is fully subscribed.
Again, I assume somebody actually knows that information. So I
don't think I am asking for exhaustive research or complicated
analysis to be done. I just need to have my questions answered.
The third is, whether the Army Corps is planning for any
increase in the Section 205 projected requests, and what are
you doing to prepare for that.
So can I have your firm pledge right now as to when I will
get answers to those questions from April?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. When?
Ms. Darcy. We will have them before the week is out.
Senator Whitehouse. Perfect. That is a big help. I
appreciate it.
And let me add a new one. And that is, the transfers that
you referred to in your testimony and that Brigadier General
McMahon just alluded to, do they affect the Section 205
account?
Ms. Darcy. The transfers that we are looking at, we are
looking at all available funding. Because we have to look at
everything nationwide across all of our business lines. But in
the 205 program specifically, I don't know if we have taken any
from there. But I will provide that for the record as well.
One thing that I do know is when, I was here last March,
but after that we had our continuing resolution and work plan
was after that. And part of the re-instruction from the
Congress was to take $100 million of our carryover from our
continuing authorities program, and that was rescinded.
Senator Whitehouse. It is interesting to me, as a Senator
from a small New England State, to hear some of the discussion
from my western colleagues where it is clear that the Army
Corps has a very large footprint and controls an enormous
amount of what goes on in terms of flooding and flood control.
We have dams that probably predate the Army Corps of Engineers
in Rhode Island. We are packed with little municipalities that
are hundreds of years old. It is a complex situation, to work
your way through all of that. Some of the dams, I don't think
it is clear even who owns or controls them. They just are
there, and they have been there for however long.
So my question is, we just had flooding March a year ago in
Rhode Island, it was pretty extreme, 500 year flood conditions
reached in certain areas. And we don't seem to have a plan for
how the different upstream dams can work with one another to
perform the kind of rain collection function, particularly if
rain is anticipated, so that we can minimize the flooding, that
they can become cachement areas for an anticipated flood.
What authorities do you have or do you need? You will end
up with the mess. When the Patuxent Cove got filled with dirt
and silt because of the flooding, you had to go in and clear it
out, to clear the navigable waterways. So you will own this
problem at the back end. What can you be doing with us at the
front end to help the Providence Water Supply Board, the State
Department of Environmental Management, the various interested
agencies work together so that we are doing our dam release
control in an integrated way that helps with flood control
protection?
Ms. Darcy. You used the word that I was going to use, the
integrative, it is clear that these dams were built years ago
and not in a way that is a system design. The integrative water
Resources Management is what needs to take place in order for
those dams not only to perform for flood control purposes, but
also whatever impacts that will have on navigation downstream.
So I think an integrated water management plan for that
either stretch of river that you are referring to for those
dams is probably what is needed. The Corps of Engineers has
some technical expertise in that area. So I think working with
a State or local sponsor, we could provide some technical
assistance.
Senator Whitehouse. We look forward to working with you.
The clock is saying that I am more than 5 minutes over.
Senator Cardin. The Senator is directly on time. Time has
just expired.
Senator Whitehouse. OK, good.
Senator Cardin. Thank you for your cooperation.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
for coming.
General Walsh, the Mississippi River literally tried to cut
a new channel across President's Island in Memphis. It did the
same in Lake County, north of there. This is the type of damage
that threatens navigation along the entire Mississippi River
and could shut down our inland waterways if we don't repair it.
In Memphis, the damage to President's Island, the Port of
Memphis, which is home to a TVA power plant, the State's only
refinery, and industries that support 3,500 jobs is extensive.
The repair of the shoreline is expected to cost $35 million and
that is just for the top bank. Millions more for other repairs,
including dredging to keep McKellar Harbor open for business.
And in Lake County, north of there, the Corps estimates $32
million will be needed to repair the top bank to keep the
Mississippi from trying to change course during the next flood.
My question is, what would happen if the Mississippi River
did cut a new channel through President's Island at Memphis?
How would that affect navigation on the Mississippi River? And
what is the priority that the Corps has for completing those
repairs?
General Walsh. Sir, thank you for the question, Senator.
The impacts would be very significant to the Mississippi River.
This is not the only top bank erosion that we have on the
Mississippi. And if we lose the direction and flow of the
Mississippi because of it, it goes into this over-bank erosion,
it is about $60 million worth of infrastructure around the
river that would be bypassed.
So this is a very significant problem that we need to work
on. It is a priority 2 item. Priority 1 items are life safety.
And right below that is priority 2. I believe this project is
the second one in the priority 2 efforts that we need to get
accomplished.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, General.
Secretary Darcy, going back a year to the 1,000 year flood
we had in Tennessee that affected everything from Opryland
around Nashville to Memphis, I urged the Corps to work with the
National Weather Service to create a warning system for floods
that was as good as our tornado warning system.
I know that it is harder, that predicting rising water is
not the same as predicting the arrival of a tornado. But the
fact is that over the last 10 years or so, the Weather Service,
the Corps and others have taken the tornado warning system and
really made miraculous improvements in it. People can actually
turn on their television sets and see that within 13 and a half
minutes a tornado is coming down their street. That is pretty
precise.
We had some problems in 2010, which the Corps admitted in
dealing with adequate communication about rising water to
businesses and individuals in Nashville, all the way down to
Memphis. Many Tennesseans felt that had they had better
information, they could have avoided a lot of damage.
Now, we have gone more than a year now since I asked the
Corps to work with the Weather Service to create a warning
system for floods that was more like the tornado warning
system. What has been the progress on that? What successes have
you had with it?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I know that we are working on it. I
don't know exactly what I can report to you today, but I will
most definitely get back to you as soon as possible. I just
don't know in enough detail.
Senator Alexander. Well, following Senator Whitehouse's
example, can I ask for a reasonable date when you might get
back to me about that?
Ms. Darcy. By the end of the week.
Senator Alexander. Two weeks will be fine. You can do his
first and mine next week. How would that be?
Ms. Darcy. That is fine.
Senator Alexander. But I am quite serious about it. It is
building on the success that the Corps had. And then even as a
result of those discussions that we had, when we had the next
rising water circumstance in Nashville, there was a lot better
communication, because the Corps and the Nashville Mayor and
others put themselves in the same room, basically, and
communicated with one another.
And so I am now more interested, not just in that, but how
do you take that same information and get it out to businesses
and people who might be in the way of the rising water? I hope
we can have the same kind of success with flood warnings, which
are, as others have said, a larger part of our damage than any
other kind of disasters. More success with that just as you did
with the tornado warnings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Secretary Darcy, in response to Senator
Boxer, you indicated the Corps doesn't need new WRDA authority
to respond to the 2011 flood repairs. Although you don't need
new authority for repairs, does the Corps need a WRDA
reauthorization to deal with other emerging issues?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, there are emerging issues all the time.
Just some things that I think we are going to need to deal with
in the future that are not particularly the subject of this
hearing, are the way we finance a lot of our projects is it is
going to have to be looked at. We currently are not, and don't
have enough money in some of our trust funds. So we are going
to have to look at new ways to recapitalize, I think, some of
those. Those are the kind of things we would need WRDA
reauthorization to do.
Senator Cardin. And I think our Committee supports a WRDA
bill. So we will obviously be working closely with you as to
how these emerging issues require congressional participation.
The Corps manages the water levels beyond dams by using
the, down through natural river systems by using the terrain,
et cetera. On the Atlantic coast, of course, successfully use
natural beach and dune systems to protect the town of Ocean
City. As I said in my opening statement, the replenishment work
that was done there, the dune work that was done there, saved
significant property damage from Irene and Lee.
It has been estimated, not counting the damage that was
saved as a result of the recent storms, but $250 million has
been saved in property damage, because of what we call the
green infrastructure that has been used along the Atlantic.
My question to you is, should the Corps be investing
greater investments in protecting floodplains, routine
renourishment of beach systems and other so-called green
systems to manage risks in the future?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I think that your examples are good
ones, because they show that yes, indeed, the beach
renourishment projects have been effective in replenishing the
beaches, as well as being a storm reduction way of preventing
some future damages.
Senator Cardin. I would just point out, the budgeting here
become challenging. I know that you are really being stretched
as far as your budget is concerned. But on these green
infrastructures, it is demonstrated that it saves money, it
saves property damage for the people in the region. I think the
more that we can use some of these natural areas, the better
off it is going to be for saving the loss of life and property.
I know it is challenging, but we would urge you to find
creative ways to do this.
Let me ask just one final question. The Corps has multiple
responsibilities, saving life, saving property and supporting
the commercial waterway traffic. Do these missions conflict? Do
we need to reflect again as to how you can carry out your
missions simultaneously?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I would say that they don't conflict.
But they do compete for resources. As pointed out in the
instance of the floods, we need to prioritize our resources for
life and safety in this instance. As I say, they compete for
resources and limited Resources.
Senator Cardin. Well, it seems like money seems to be your
problem right now. Clearly, we have challenges in trying to
manage the demand for commerce as well as to protect life and
property. I was listening to Senator Baucus' comments, not only
about the river diversions, but about the priorities. It seems
to me that we may need to reflect as to what our priorities are
and to allocate Resources consistent with that. There are going
to be limited resources for the foreseeable future.
With that, let me turn it over to Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I would like to
followup on his essentially talking about resources. Again,
Secretary Darcy and then General Walsh, I understand, Secretary
Darcy, that you have exercised your emergency authority to
transfer funds from other appropriations accounts to respond to
the flood and begin doing the repairs, which again is quite
appropriate.
I guess what I would like to know is some examples of the
kind of projects that may suffer as a result of the transfers,
and then also, really some specifics about what resources we
actually need, so that the Corps can repair the damage to, for
instance, the Mississippi River and Tributaries project and
have it ready for the next flood season, so that we don't have
you here then after that is all over, complaining bitterly that
it didn't work.
So if you would respond. And before you do respond, I want
to thank all of you. I know that you worked very, very hard,
and this has really been a great trial, and the system held up
very, very well. Again, those things don't just happen, like
you say. That is a lot of hard work.
Secretary Darcy.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we are currently assessing what the
ultimate damages have been from the floods, both the
Mississippi and Missouri, as well as the damages from Tropical
Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene. We are looking at $2 billion
that we need in order to repair and restore the system to the
pre-flood conditions. Your question about the transfers, so far
we have transferred $212 million from other accounts into the
flood control and coastal emergencies account. We will continue
to look at other ways to transfer money. We have monthly
requirements that we have to fulfill, because it is emergency
response.
However, we are evaluating those dollars individually, so
that we don't create a situation where we are taking it away
from another life safety project. We are looking in the out
years, sort of the end of 2012, to take money that won't be
spent until then and moving that up into transferring it now
for this immediate need.
General Walsh. Thank you very much for the question,
Senator.
While we were working through the flood, we had already put
together our damage survey assessment teams, so that as the
water was going down, we were able to look at those parts that
needed repair of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.
From that we put together a list of 93 prioritized portions f
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project that needs
repair. And that comes to about $800 million just for those
repairs. And I put another team together to look at the
system's performance. And that systems performance team is also
looking at the funds needed to bring that together.
As well as putting together an inter-agency recovery task
force with the 7 States and 14 Federal agencies gathering
together to see what resources that we have to put the system
back together and make sure everybody understands where we are
going to work with that. To date, there are $73 million came to
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, or my division,
out of that $800 million required.
So there is a concern of a flood of a lesser magnitude
having significant impact through next year.
Senator Boozman. Thank you. And again, that type of work is
so important as you go forward. I think you have heard a lot of
interest in really trying to get that information so we can be
of help, through WRDA bill or whatever. I do think, Mr.
Chairman, that the communication back and forth will be so
important, so that we can move forward and get this stuff
accomplished.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Senator Whitehouse.
[Presiding] Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all
of you for your work and service, particularly in this
extraordinary flood event and this disaster.
I just want to step back and make sure we have the big
picture. Madam Secretary, what is the total estimate of damage
from this year's flooding events from the Corps' perspective,
in terms of all repair work that is necessary because of all
the extraordinary dredging, et cetera? What would that total
dollar figure be?
Ms. Darcy. That is the $2 billion figure, Senator, and that
includes the impacts from dredging as well.
Senator Vitter. OK. And what amount of money is the
Administration asking in terms of extraordinary appropriations
in light of that?
Ms. Darcy. At the moment, there is no request for a
supplemental appropriation.
Senator Vitter. I thought some Corps funding was already
built into an appropriation request we have, to the tune of
about $800 million now?
Ms. Darcy. I don't believe so, Senator, but I will check.
Senator Vitter. OK. What is the Administration's plan in
terms of any extraordinary funding request?
Ms. Darcy. At this time, there is not a plan for one. But
it is hopefully still going to be under consideration.
Senator Vitter. So as of now, $2 billion just has to come
out of your hide in terms of ongoing projects, ongoing
operations?
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Senator Vitter. Is that sustainable?
Ms. Darcy. It is going to have to, we have to do these
repairs, so we have to find the money somewhere. We are going
to have look at out years, everything has to be on the table.
And as I said, we are looking to the out year projects, things
that aren't scheduled to be funded until later next year. But
we are running out of those kinds of projects, and it is going
to come from some other existing balances that we have.
So we are trying to be creative and looking at that. We are
also looking at what we currently are operating under the
continuing resolution to see if there is any money in that from
now until November that we can use.
Senator Vitter. So if no supplemental request is made, what
would be the top priority items that will be stolen from and
that will be sacrificed? What sorts of things at the top end of
the list in terms of priority needs and projects?
Ms. Darcy. They would be projects that, as I said, the
funding is not scheduled until the end of next year, so we
would take that money and use it now.
The types of projects, all projects are under
consideration. But of course, the one that we will probably
look to last are those that are life safety.
Senator Vitter. In your testimony, Madam Secretary, you
also refer to a document that ``would serve as a reference
guide for future flood risk management.' When do expect that to
be completed?
Ms. Darcy. The document that you are referring to I think
is the one we hope to have by the end of December. I would need
to confirm that for you.
Senator Vitter. OK, if you can confirm that for me. Will
that document incorporate this past year's experience?
Obviously you have a wealth of brand new data, particularly in
terms of the Mississippi River system that by definition is as
up to date as possible in terms of an extraordinary event this
past year. So will that new information and new data be
incorporated into this document by the end of the year?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Vitter. And will that be the new operating manual
moving forward?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator, it won't be the new operating
manual for the Missouri, if that is what you are referring to.
Or the operating manual for the MR&T.
Senator Vitter. What is the process to update the operating
manual in both cases? What is the time table for that?
Ms. Darcy. I am going to defer to General McMahon from
Missouri and General Walsh from Mississippi.
General McMahon. Thank you, Senator, ma'am. There are
several means, Senator Vitter, to make adjustment to how we
manage the system. Annually we go through what we call the
annual operating process, and that is a public process that
begins next Monday in Omaha. We will conduct a series of eight
public meetings in each of the eight Basin States. That will
feed our immediate plans for how we anticipate operating the
system through calendar year 2012.
The master manual that was alluded to earlier is the
document that backstops the annual operating plan, and it is
the document that fundamentally allocates across eight
authorized purposes how water is allocated to meet those eight
authorized purposes. And that is a public process. We have
discretionary authority to adjust that on a short-term, I mean
1-year basis.
But longer term, we need to go through a public process
that is----
Senator Vitter. I don't want to cut you off, but my time is
basically up. In general, what is the time table for updating
that big manual?
General McMahon. Well, it will fundamentally depend, but
the independent external review of the water management
operations will help us decide whether or not to undertake that
revision and to what scope and scale, based on the
recommendations that come from that panel.
Senator VItter. Isn't the preliminary evidence pretty
strong that given this extraordinary event and given very new
data that this is the moment in time you would want to update
the manual?
General McMahon. Yes, sir, I would say that we have a new
hydrological data point that makes us take that into
consideration very seriously.
Senator Vitter. And again, real broad brush, what is a
realistic timeframe for updating that long term manual?
General McMahon. It is hard to say, but I would say
anywhere from one to X years.
Senator Vitter. X is pretty open-ended.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. I just want to point out that that gives us
the possibility of many additional flood seasons with an
arguably outdated manual, and given the extraordinary nature of
this recent event, I would encourage a real focus on updating
the long term manual relatively quickly.
General McMahon. Yes, sir.
Senator Cardin.
[Presiding] Let me thank you for not only your testimony
and appearance here today, but for your service to our Country.
We know these are very trying times and we very much appreciate
the professionalism in which you operate these very stressful
issues. So thank you again, and that will complete this panel.
We now turn to our next panel. We have a number of
interests represented, including broad national perspectives as
well as representatives from across the impacted region. We
welcome Dr. Gerald Galloway, with the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Maryland. Very
proud to have a person from the University of Maryland here.
Mr. Larry Larson, the Executive Director of the Association
fo State Floodplain Managers. Mr. Buzz Mattelin, the President
of the Lower Missouri Coordinated Resource Management Council,
and the President of the Montana Association of Conservation
Districts. Mr. Terry McGean, the Civil Engineer for Ocean City,
Maryland, who I referred to in my opening comments. Captain
Mike Lorino, President of the Associated Branch Pilots. Mr.
Brian Dunnigan, the Director of the Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources. And Mayor A.C. Wharton, Jr., the Mayor of
Memphis, Tennessee.
I thank you all very much for your patience, and I am going
to ask that you try to condense your opening comments to three
to 4 minutes. We will let you go a minute over if you need to.
The reason is that we do need to adjourn the hearing by a
quarter of 1. So with that in mind, we will start first with
Dr. Galloway.
STATEMENT OF GERALD E. GALLOWAY, PE., PH.D., GLENN L. MARTIN
INSTITUTE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. Galloway. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
privilege to be here. I will try and go very quickly.
The disastrous floods of 2011 impacted many parts of the
Country. While that is a critical focus of this meeting today,
I would like to talk about the future and where we are going to
go with floods that might hit us as we move forward.
I would make two comments about the testimony we have just
heard from Secretary Darcy and the Corps leaders. It is
interesting that on the Missouri River, the issue of how it is
to be operated, as Senator Baucus pointed out, has been the
subject of much discussion. One National Academy report that
said the answer lies here on the Hill with a resolution of
conflicting laws and regulations and guidance on how to operate
it.
The second part of that is the court case in 1994, or 2004,
where a Federal judge looked at the competition for the uses
and made the decision that the Congress needed to do something
about that. So I think there are two issue with management of
the Missouri that require some work up here.
I would note that, other than the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project, and the TVA, Miami of Ohio Conservation
District, the Nation essentially does not have a flood control
system. We have talked about that, we have used that term.
There is no national plan. We don't have a national goal or
objective for flood risk management. And climate change, sea
level rise and population growth are going to make that even
worse.
I would like to give you a few thoughts on where we should
go. I use the term flood risk management instead of flood
control, because across the globe, everywhere in the world,
there is a shift from focusing on reducing flood damages by
trying to control where floodwaters go, to accepting the
premise that floods are natural events and that in the long
run, only through a portfolio, as you just mentioned, of green
and non-structural infrastructure, plus the normal structure
infrastructure, can we minimize or reduce the damages.
Flood risk management also accepts the proposition that
absolute protection is not possible. And even the Dutch have
come to this realization. Let me highlight a few reasons why
the current approach we are taking is not up to the task at
face. I have four major points that I will quickly go through.
First, in a 1994 White House study after the Great
Mississippi flood, I happened to lead that study and reported
it to this same Committee. We pointed out that we have no goals
and objectives in our efforts to deal with flood and that the
responsibility for how we manage floods is scattered between
the Federal, State and local governments, and it is not well
defined. Clearly, we need to address this issue and come up
with some sort of a solution as to who is responsible for what.
In WRDA 2007, you directed the Secretary of the Army to
within 2 years revise principles and guidelines to reflect new
flood-related policies that you included in that WRDA. Nearly 4
years later, that hasn't reached the Hill. State and local
governments have responsibility for land use management, and in
many cases do little to stem development. That continues in
high-risk areas.
In most cases, until recently, States have been singularly
absent from the management and oversight of levees, it has been
left to the Federal Government, and have varied involvement in
oversight of dam safety. Individual property owners don't share
in the responsibility as much as they should. The abysmal
participation of people who live in the floodplain and the
National Flood Insurance program, even when it is mandatory, is
somewhere near 25 percent penetration, indicates that
floodplain residents don't see a need for them to carry part of
the responsibility.
The second issue: we face significant flood risks in this
Country and many people who live in the floodplain do not
understand or appreciate the risk they face. We do not know or
don't seem to be wiling to find out the national exposure to
the risk of flooding. Technology would permit us to do this if
it was resourced.
Third, much of the populated flood-prone areas across the
Nation sit behind or below uncoordinated amalgam of Federal,
State and local levees and dams, the condition and integrity of
which may not be known. Estimates indicate there are 100,000
miles of levees in this Country, only 14,000 of which fall
under the Corps of Engineers and some other form of Federal
oversight.
American Society of Civil Engineers in its 2009 report card
assigned grades of D minus to levees and D to dams, and there
is no indication the picture is getting any better. Four years
ago, in WRDA 2007, you, recognizing the urgency of the
situation, established a levee safety program and directed the
National Committee on Levee Safety to look after the situation
and make recommendations to the Congress in 180 days.
In January 2009, they turned in their report to the
Administration. But it has not yet been officially sent to you.
You have not acted on it, even though the report is available
to you. In essence, nothing has been done at the national level
to move ahead on the well thought-out recommendations of this
Committee that do require active State and local involvement.
The third part of the levee and dam challenge is funding.
The Congress and the Administration must come to grips with
funding for this infrastructure. ASCE suggests that it would be
a 5-year, $50 billion burden to deal with the levees, and we
have heard some of that this morning, or a $5 billion, 5-year
program for dam safety.
Doing nothing increases the problem and puts more people at
risk every day. If levees, dams and flood walls and other
related structures remain part of the national approach to deal
with flooding, and they have to be, then Resources must be
identified and provided within a Federal, State, local, private
partnership to ensure that what is in place will in fact do its
job. Every day that funding is postponed, the problems grows
larger.
Fourth, we are not dealing with flood issues on a watershed
basis. We talk about watersheds, we talk about integrated
management but do not act that way. A flood-related project in
one community can cause problems upstream and downstream.
Congress continues to authorize individual projects without
fully understanding their watershed context. That is not the
right way to go.
Senator Cardin. We have to ask you to complete your
statement.
Mr. Galloway. I will conclude by just saying, managing
flood risks presents a serious challenge, a challenge we have
known about for two decades. It is time to do something about
it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galloway follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. All of your statements will be included in
its entirety for the record. Without objection. Thank you.
Mr. Larson.
STATEMENT OF LARRY A. LARSON, P.E., CFM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the Committee, for
holding this hearing. I will truncate my remarks.
First, I want to hope that the Committee recognizes as
Gerry says that our flood control system really is an
amalgamation of various things. It is dams and levees, but it
is programs and various Federal agencies, we talk about, the
Corps and FEMA, we have the NRCS watershed programs, NOAA, on
and on and on. And then you throw in 2,000 flood-prone
communities in 50 States who are the ones who really have prime
responsibility for reducing flood losses and protecting public
safety. So we have a mish-mash of activities that is going on
in the Nation that comprises what we think of as our system.
In 2008, in my view, we dodged the bullet. You can look at
it two ways. We have talked a lot today about what worked. But
I think it is important to recognize there was a lot of the
systems, the so-called systems, that were really on the edge.
We were very close to catastrophe. We had very close to
Katrinas in many instances.
Some of the reasons for that Senator Baucus talked about.
Take the Mississippi River. We took away two-thirds of nature's
floodplains. And then we wonder how we can constrain these
maximum extreme flood events during those times of heavy
flooding when she tries to reclaim that floodplain.
In the northeast, as we have talked about, there are many
different systems. There are really not as many systems as
there are individual projects, most of these State and locally
operated and not coordinated. And I am not sure that is all
bad. That is just the way it is, and we need to recognize that.
The question for 2011 is whether these floods were epic.
The answer is, no, they weren't. I hate to tell you that, but
they weren't. We need to recognize that they weren't, and that
we are going to see more and more of these kinds of events.
What is called a 1,000 year event in Nashville over the next 40
years, with a couple more of those events, it is all based on
statistics in the past, will now become a 100 year flood. So
these things change over time. We need to recognize that.
Our current systems and programs and policies and practices
are inadequate. We need to recognize that. I think this year we
really had a polo event; 2011 was a polo event.
Let me mention four things quickly that I think you can
address as overarching objectives. First, a comprehensive
review of where we are with our policies in 20 and 50 years
from now; two, assessing the Nation's infrastructure, as Gerry
talked about, where we are, how many people are at risk and the
rest; three, finishing up the P&G you asked the Administration
to do; four, establish a national policy framework for flood
risk management.
Ms. Darcy was asked about that, and I think that is an
important element we need to all talk about. How we manage dams
and levees and coasts and rivers, it all happened under this
rubric of a flood risk management approach. It is not flood
control, it is flood risk management. And we need to think
about how we do that.
We have many other recommendations in our testimony and we
would be pleased to work with the Committee to help make the
Nation more sustainable and recognize the cost and benefits
from flooding.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Mattelin.
STATEMENT OF BUZZ MATTELIN, PRESIDENT, LOWER MISSOURI
COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL; PRESIDENT, MONTANA
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Mr. Mattelin. Chairman Cardin, members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity.
I am a third-generation Montana farmer. I grow high quality
durham wheat and malting barley and sugar beets on the Missouri
River bottoms in northeast Montana. My family, for 97 years,
has been living and working along the river, 80 miles
downstream of Fort Peck, the first dam on the Missouri River
system.
In addition to running the farm business, I also represent
irrigation interests on the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee, known as MRRIC.
This was a difficult summer, dealing with the flood and
watching floodwaters drown my crops. My heart goes out to all
those who have suffered flood damages, especially those who had
damages to their homes.
Conditions responsible for the 2011 Missouri River flooding
began in the fall of 2010. Fall rains resulted in wet soils
prior to freeze-up. Frozen soil doesn't allow moisture from
melting snow to enter the soil and the water runs off. Record
Plains snowfall, 300 percent of normal in my area, melted and
ran off, filling every prairie pothole, wetland in over half of
Fort Peck's annual flood control zone.
When the record rain came in May, it fell on saturated
soils and it all ran off. The mountain snow pack had continued
to grow and reached 141 percent of average. The combination of
these conditions resulted in the record flooding of 2011.
What could have improved flood response? Earlier
recognition of the flood could have improved response. I don't
blame the Corps. As a farmer who has watched a hailstorm wipe
out a year's work and income, I understand what it is like to
be at the mercy of nature. The Corps could not have foreseen
the record rainfall. It is easy to judge with the benefit of
hindsight. It is easy to work backward when you know the runoff
totals. It is much harder when nature keeps throwing more water
your way.
The Missouri River master manual states the sooner a
significant flood event can be recognized and appropriate pre-
releases of flow scheduled, an improvement in overall flood
control can be achieved. Earlier recognition may have allowed
some management flexibility or decreased the maximum releases.
Average runoff above Sioux City, Iowa is 24.8 million acre
feet. By September, it ended up 61 million acre feet.
Operational flood tunnels at Fort Peck would have increased
the safety during the flood. The two flood tunnels at Fort Peck
were not available for use because of severe vibration at the
gates. At some of the other dams, the spillway was shut down
for inspection and repair. This wasn't an option at Fort Peck.
Authority has been requested for replacement, but not approved.
What worked well? The mainstream dams and structures
performed as designed and the Corps operated the system in
accordance with the master manual and existing laws. The system
afforded downstream residents time to prepare, plan and remove
possessions from harm's way and the system lessened the
severity of the flood.
The National Weather Service river forecast was extremely
helpful. This forecast predicts river stages at gauging
stations 5 days forward.
How about a way forward? Let's not overreact with abrupt
changes to the master manual. It doesn't make good sense to
manage the system for an event that occurs once in 500 years.
The master manual is the foundation for long-term decisions and
investments, both private and public. With the well-vetted
revision completed in 2003, the master manual has provided 50
years of stability in a contentious basin. The master manual
provides an equitable path to management of the system for
flood control, hydropower, navigation, water supply, irrigation
and recreation and wildlife.
I can think of at least two ways to improve flood control
in the Basin. First is to provide more space in the reservoirs,
but less stored water is at a detriment to other authorized
purposes. My choice, and the second, is to improve recognition
of significant events. The annual operating plan begins each
new year at normal or average starting point. We rarely, if
ever, have an average year.
The Corps does a good job of incorporating mountain snow
pack, Plains snow pack and short-term precipitation and AOP,
but fails to use variables like soil moisture and climatic
trends. Soil moisture data is readily available in weekly crop
reports. We should also look at El Nino and La Nina events.
When you overlay past La Nina events with high runoff years in
the Basin, there are definite correlations during the high
runoff years in the 1970's, 1990's and this year. Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is another ocean temperature
phenomenon that shows promise as a predictor of precipitation
in the Northern Plains.
We also need to ensure adequate funding for USGS stream
gauges. As Federal budgets have tightened, the share that non-
Federal partners pay has increased. The USGS gauges are a
critical link in flood control and can't be dependent on soft
sources of funding.
I will close with something that a farmer friend said to me
as he was dealing with the flood. Without any bitterness, he
said, ``The river has been good to me for many years, but this
year belongs to the river.'
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mattelin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Mattelin.
Mr. McGean.
STATEMENT OF TERENCE J. McGEAN, P.E., CITY ENGINEER, OCEAN
CITY, MARYLAND
Mr. McGean. Thank you.
The Town of Ocean City is located about a 3-hour drive east
of here, on a barrier island on the Atlantic coast of Maryland.
Although the census lists Ocean City's population as only about
7,000, we host over 8 million visitors each year, and on an
average summer weekend, our population swells to 300,000
people. This makes Ocean City the second largest city in
Maryland in the summer time.
Ocean City is 10 miles long, and encompasses a total area
of just three and a half square miles. Within that small area,
we have 28,000 living units valued at over $10 billion. As a
barrier island community, our greatest risk is ocean flooding
from tropical and extra-tropical storm events.
In 1985, Tropical Storm Gloria passed just offshore of
Ocean City. The storm destroyed the Ocean City boardwalk and
damaged or undermined the foundations of numerous buildings.
With virtually no beach or dune system after Gloria, Ocean City
was at a crossroads. It was right around this time that beach
replenishment became recognized shore protection strategy and
the Miami Beach project was completed and proving to be very
successful.
Studies showed that if a beach platform itself could be
stabilized, then a positive cost benefit ratio for Federal
participation in a shore protection project could occur. To
that end, the local and State governments completed what became
known as Phase One of the beach replenishment project. Using
100 percent local funds, the Ocean City Beach was widened to
create a suitable foundation for a Federal project.
In 1990, the Federal project, formally known as the
Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project, began
construction. The project built 8.3 miles of new sand dune, a
one and a half mile seawall protecting the boardwalk, and a
storm berm along the entire oceanfront. The project cost $48
million and was cost shared between Federal and local
governments.
The project was nearly complete in 1991, when a series of
northeast storms, including the infamous Perfect Storm that in
previous years would have several damaged Ocean City, struck.
Ocean City suffered no damage except for some lost sand. And
while adjacent beach town businesses had to close, we were open
for business and didn't miss a beat.
The success of the project continues to this day. Total
damages prevented are now $330 million. Total project costs,
including phase one of 100 percent local money, initial
construction of the Federal project, and periodic
replenishments total just over $100 million with the Federal
share at just over $50 million.
Although the prevented damages numbers are impressive, they
don't tell the whole story. Prior to beach replenishment, the
assessable base of Ocean City was $3 billion, and we
contributed $35 million in annual Federal tax revenue. Today
the assessable base is over $10 billion and over $75 million in
Federal tax revenue comes from the city annually.
On Saturday, August 28th, Ocean City was literally in the
eye of the hurricane. You can see us there and you can see
Hurricane Irene. The storm came in our busy summer season, and
expecting the worst, we successfully evacuated the town. When
the sun came up Sunday morning, I sent out our damage
assessment teams. But instead of toppled buildings and
destroyed infrastructure, we found loose siding and a pothole
in the city parking lot. By noon on Sunday, our business was
open. Visitors were streaming back into town. And we had one of
the busiest Labor Day weekends we have had in years.
In some ways we got lucky. The storm passed quickly and
came through at low tide. But I would call your attention to
this photograph taken in Ocean City 25 years ago just after
Gloria, a storm very similar to Irene. Now imagine we never had
beach replenishment. We would start from this point and have 25
years of erosion at two feet a year, plus additional damage
from nor'easters and hurricanes. That would have been the
condition of Ocean City, or what was left or us, as Irene
struck.
Now look at Ocean City today. This photo shows the exact
same area of the beach taken last week. These projects work.
Irene served as a reminder that the damages from a hurricane
are not limited to the coast. In Ocean City, Irene demonstrated
that by recognizing the risks associated with strong storms,
then adopting strict building codes and investing in effective
flood protection measures like beach replenishment, the impact
from these storms can be significantly reduced.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGean follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. McGean.
Captain Lorino.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MICHAEL R. LORINO, JR., PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATED BRANCH PILOTS
Captain Lorino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good evening.
Mr. Chairman, before I touch on some of my concerns with
the 2011 high water situation on the Mississippi River system,
I would like to thank the Corps New Orleans District for doing
a great job, not only this year, but in past years as well.
When the Corps district is funded adequately and equipped
adequately, they do a fantastic job.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to our primary issue. How can
we adequately fund the Corps' budget to properly maintain the
Mississippi River system? I can assure this Committee it is
well within all of our best interests to collaborate and solve
this problem. Combined, the five ports on the Mississippi River
system make up the largest port system in the U.S., the second
largest in the world.
More than 10,300 vessels transited through Southwest Pass
going either in or out of our river system in 2010. Each of
those vessels was safely navigated through one of the most
treacherous and demand river systems in the world. Failure to
properly maintain Southwest Pass to project dimensions is a
safety issue for all of us who live and work on the river
system. But just as importantly, it is a substantial economic
threat to our Nation.
We handle, Mr. Chairman, 30 percent of the Nation's oil
imports, 60 to 70 percent of the Nation's grain exports. Those
numbers can be reduced drastically without proper maintenance
of the shipping channel. The issue is complex, but the bottom
line is simple. Without adequate funding for dredging and
maintenance, you cannot get American-made and grown goods on
ships for export with high river conditions. The demand for
these products exist. But if shipping companies cannot access
American goods, they will go elsewhere. I don't have to tell
you what that would mean for our farmers, millions of
individual jobs and our Nation's economic bottom line.
The problem we see today comes from two sources: constant
under-funding of the Corps budget and the mis-use of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, for which it was instituted to ensure
necessary funding for our ports and harbors. For the past 12
years, the New Orleans District has been underfunded in their
O&M budget. Next year they will be underfunded by at least $20
million once again, and that is if nothing goes wrong, such as
another high river, for example.
To their credit, for the past 12 years, the Mississippi
Valley Division of the Corps has understood how critical the
Mississippi River system is. They have reprogrammed funds from
other projects to accommodate necessary dredging.
Reprogramming of funds will no longer occur. The Corps now
operates under a white paper that restricts funding usage. And
this new policy eliminates the possibility of dredging enough
to maintain project dimensions at a particular time.
In one of the many meetings I had with the Corps on this
issue, I discussed the economic impact associated with cargo
loss and the response was, it will be shipped from other ports
in the U.S. Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. This is very
inaccurate. When I further stated we could have a grounding or
even an oil spill, I was told, maybe something has to bring
this issue to light.
This brings me to serious concerns that the change in the
Corps' policy regarding funding does not reflect sufficient
priority to the Mississippi River system. Instead, it appears
to be more about political posturing and an effort to garner
further necessary funding for the Corps. We are being used as a
pawn in a very dangerous game.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an acceptable way to manage the
busiest and most complex waterway system in the U.S. and
possibly the world.
Please refer to the slide presentation that we have. I
would like to review the diagrams that demonstrate the impact
of loss of project dimensions, depth and width, the possibility
of a collision in Southwest Pass, which could shut off
America's heartland.
[Slide shown.]
Captain Lorino. Mr. Chairman, the first one is, if you
would look there and see where the red meets the yellow, that
is the entrance to American heartlands. If that area is closed,
everything shuts off. Everything. Nothing moves in and out the
river system.
[Slide shown.]
Captain Lorino. Next one. That is two ships that are
passing in a normal channel. You have 300 feet between those
two ships, 300 feet between two ships that are about 1,000 feet
long and 150 feet wide.
[Slide shown.]
Captain Lorino. When you reduce the channel, Mr. Chairman,
from 750 to 650, you can see it goes down to 195 feet wide,
very narrow.
[Slide shown.]
Captain Lorino. No. 5, 600 to 500, we now have 100 feet to
pass those two ships, as was done last year. When you get down
to 400 feet, Mr. Chairman, it is not a safe situation at all.
But it has been done, because we have to keep our river system
open. But the fact that just because we lose project draft and
dimension is a safe issue, it is really not. It is something
that has to be stressed and maintained at all times. Both
project width and dimension.
Senator Cardin. I am going to have to ask you to complete
your statement.
Captain Lorino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to touch on these, and I thank
the Committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Captain Lorino follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dunnigan.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN DUNNIGAN, DIRECTOR, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Dunnigan. Good afternoon, members of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. I will be brief.
I would like to begin by reporting that the Governors or
their representatives from eight Missouri River Basin States
met with the Corps yesterday to coordinate their efforts and
actively address needed matters related to Missouri River
flooding. This was not the first meeting of the group, as most
of the Governors also attended an August 19th meeting in Omaha
to discuss concerns related to the flood.
In that first meeting, Governors or their representatives
from seven of the eight States signed a letter indicating a
clear consensus that flood control must be the highest priority
in the operation of the Missouri River mainstem system. It also
strongly requested that the Corps thoroughly examine future
management of the river in light of this year's precipitation
and flooding, and report to them on alternate actions to reduce
future high flow events.
Finally, it was requested that the Corps provide
recommendations for specific operational changes to afford
greater future flood protection and consult with States and
tribes in selecting and implementing any changes.
In yesterday's followup meeting, the Governors discussed
opportunities to increase future flood control focus and
discuss recovery priorities and coordinations. One point that
can be taken from these meetings is that the Basin Governors
are very serious about taking action to reduce the risk of
future flooding and the level of future flood damages as well
as address recovery priorities.
We don't have a full reliable tally of damages at this
time. But we have received data in Nebraska on over $155
million in public infrastructure damages eligible for
assistance. We had disaster declarations for 13 counties along
the Missouri River, and another three counties in the North
Platt Basin on the other end of the State.
Overall, our experience with the Corps activities during
the flood was positive. We generally received invaluable
assistance from the Corps personnel and are very appreciative
of its assistance on levees and emergency mitigation. One
outcome I hope to see come from future efforts is improved
communication in both the spring rise situations, where
flooding becomes a possibility, and during the emergency flood
situation itself. Flooding involves a wide spectrum of State
and local government responses, where having the best possible
information as soon as possible can help result in better and
more cost-effective decisionmaking.
While a thorough examination of the 2011 Missouri Basin
flood will likely identify some areas where different actions
could have been taken, the most important controllable outcome
is how we incorporate new data and perspectives into future
decisionmaking in terms of both mainstem system operations and
how those of us in the Basin prepare and respond. In Nebraska,
it has resulted in a strengthened focus on flood control as a
system priority. We look forward to working with the Corps of
Engineers as they re-examine their activities and options in
light of new information and Basin priorities.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunnigan.
Mayor Wharton, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. A.C. WHARTON, JR., MAYOR, CITY OF MEMPHIS,
TENNESSEE
Mayor Wharton. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for convening the
hearing. I would like to thank Senator Alexander for inviting
us up.
I will likewise be brief. Of course, I am from Memphis,
Tennessee, which is right in the tip of the delta there. I join
the other witnesses in underscoring the fact that for the most
part, our systems, as aged as they may be, did indeed work. We
want to thank the Corps of Engineers for working with us as we
installed some of the floodwalls, which had never been used,
quite frankly, and again, are quite up in age.
In spite of working so well, the flood did impact our
community. Fortunately, though, the impact was not as severe as
it could have been. St. Jude's Children's Hospital, which is
located just a few blocks from the river, was spared some
massive flooding because the system did work.
I might add, though, that the pumping station that kept St.
Jude's from out of the flood is 95 years old. And the key point
I would like to leave is that while the system worked this
time, it has aged so that we are not confident that in future
floods of this magnitude that these aging structures will be
able to withstand the pressure placed upon them by floods of
this magnitude.
So I would hope that we would take away from these hearings
some estimate and some time table for beginning, while we have
the time, to reinforce the aging infrastructure. As Senator
Alexander pointed out, President's Island, which is leading us
out of the economic slump, it is almost a perfect storm, as
someone just indicated, we have high unemployment, but over the
past 18 months, we have been able to place about 2,000 jobs
with Electrolux, Mitsubishi, Nucor and other employers coming
in there. We want to make sure that those investments are
indeed safe.
As we look at our initial estimates, we are looking at $20
million to $30 million to repair. You saw the channel that was
threatened across President's Island, dredging work of $2.5
million, shoreline work of another $5 million. So again, a very
costly occurrence. We wish to thank the Corps again for working
with us, helping us maintain and install the structures. And we
ask that they continue their diligence in forecasting into the
future as to the life of these structures and what it is going
to take to make sure that they are able in the decades to come
to withstand future floods of this and perhaps greater
magnitude.
Thank you so much for holding the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Wharton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you for your testimony. Thank all of
you for your testimony, and thank you for condensing the
presentation in light of our time restraint. We very much
appreciate that. We assure you, your entire remarks will be not
only made part of the record but will be used by the Committee
as we investigate how to proceed.
Let me turn first to Senator Johanns for questioning.
Senator Johanns. Let me say to each of you, I appreciate
your being here. Brian, a special thanks, coming out from
Nebraska.
Mayor, we hadn't met before, but I think you and I are
working on a trail in your community. I have been working with
some business people there.
Mayor Wharton. Charlie McVain.
Senator Johanns. Yes.
Mayor Wharton. We were in Omaha earlier this year.
Senator Johanns. Yes. It is funny that in Nebraska, a guy
would work in a trail. But I happen to know some people there.
Mayor Wharton. You will be able to ride a bike from Memphis
to Omaha.
Senator Johanns. Yes. We like that idea.
Without digging into questions, because I think we had
great testimony and all of your statements will be a part of
the record, Mr. Chairman, if I might just offer a thought. As
we think about the next year coming up, I have to imagine,
everybody on this panel is nervous. Because many of the things
that built up to create the problem this year are not only
there now, but they aren't likely to improve any between now
and next spring when we start to deal with runoff and those
issues.
The second thing that I think we have all learned from this
hearing is that we have about a $2 billion issue hanging out
there that quite honestly, my concern is that we just didn't
get a good sense of how that problem is going to be solved.
There apparently is no supplemental coming our way. I
appreciate it is very difficult economic times and budget time
and somehow, some way, we have to figure out how to fund these
things.
But the reality is, I am a little bit worried that we are
going to hit a drop-dead date here where, in the Midwest, there
is no construction season left. If we appropriate the money in
December, it isn't going to help much, because you can't do
construction during the winter months that needs to be done.
So at the conclusion of this hearing, I am hoping that we
feel a sense of urgency to try to solve this problem. I did not
hear today any good way of solving it. But somehow, some way,
Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that Republicans and Democrats, in a
very bipartisan way, can sit down and talk through this and
figure out how to get the funding and get it quickly so we can
take advantage of the limited days that are left in this
construction season and try to repair some of the damage that
is out there.
Then the final thing I would say to all of you who have
worked on these issues longer than I have, obviously, I just
want to encourage you, continue to work with the Corps,
continue to work with us. We have a whole host of problems out
there.
Mayor, when you say that your St. Jude's Hospital, which is
world-renowned, I grew up knowing about this hospital, was
saved by a pumping system that is nearly a century old, that
has to be a concern to everybody. Because I guarantee, we have
those problems throughout the system.
I had a choice of asking questions or saying a few words.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. I decided it would
be best use of my time to say a few words.
Senator Cardin. Well, Senator, I think you really
summarized the circumstances extremely well, and I fully concur
in your comments. There is a sense of urgency here.
It is interesting, at this hearing, we had 20 witnesses at
the witness table, just showing the interest, including nine
Members of Congress. During the course of this hearing, nine
members of the Committee have participated, which is a large
number, considering this is a day in which there are a lot of
committees that are meeting.
So I think there is a great deal of interest. And as our
Chairman and Ranking Member said at the beginning of this
hearing, this is an area where we have bipartisan agreement
that we need to do what is necessary to protect the people of
this Country. So I agree with Senator Johanns, I think this is
a matter of urgency. We have to move forward.
Dr. Galloway, I think your challenge to us was absolutely
right. We do need to develop a national plan for flood risk
management. I like that term, flood risk management. Yes, we
use traditional structures such as dams and levees, but we also
use the green infrastructure that we have been talking about.
And it is the management issues. We can't prevent these extreme
conditions, but you certainly can manage them in a much more
effective way so the public knows the risks and you take
appropriate action to minimize it. So we don't have as much
damage to repair after the fact. I thought that was well done.
And to Mr. McGean, I just want you to know, your numbers
updated our numbers. The direct savings were three to one if
you include all government investments, six to one from the
Federal Government's investment.
But your last number I thought was the most telling. And
that is, the work that we have done on green infrastructure has
actually brought in more money to the Federal Treasury. More
money to the Federal Treasury. If you took a look at that view
of Ocean City and realized what the assessed values and
revenues and tourism would have been if the renourishment
programs had not been done, versus how it is today and what we
were able to preserve and get back into business quickly after
Hurricane Irene struck, then you know that the Federal
Government, as recipients of tax dollars, got more money in as
a result of its relatively modest investment over the period of
time with $50 million.
So I think that these projects enjoy bipartisan support for
a good reason. They make good economic sense as well as
providing the services that are important to the people of this
Country.
Captain Lorino, I have one question for you. Because your
numbers really worried me when you got to that 400 foot level.
Was that a temporary problem of obstruction? Or was that the
failure to maintain channels at the appropriate width when you
got to 400 feet? Because we don't want you at 400 feet.
Captain Lorino. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are speaking today
about 2011. I have been a pilot on the river for 33 years. And
every year, you have high river. Every year you encounter the
same type of situation that we had, it is only a different
degree. But the answer to your question, sir, yes it was 400,
it went down as low as 185 feet, to be quite honest with you,
during a certain part of time.
Then we had to lower the draft from 47 feet to 45 to 43.
And when we say that, it is easy to say each foot represents a
million dollars of cargo either in or out of the United States.
So when I am asking for $20 million to maintain that channel
and we lose a few ships, it is nothing. So the answer sir, is,
it is very narrow. We try to do the best we can. The Corps does
a fantastic job when they have funding.
Senator Cardin. We agree with you, and our challenges on
the East Coast are a little bit different. But maintaining our
channels is critically important. I know some of the risk
factors on the C&D Canal, trying to navigate that. We have been
trying to get rid of those areas that present huge risks. It is
a funding issue, and we need to make sure that that is done.
I am going to keep the record of the Committee open for
questions that may be asked by members of the Committee to you
all. Because of the lateness of this panel, I would just ask
your cooperation that if questions are proposed in writing that
you would respond promptly to the Committee. Not quite as bad
as Secretary Darcy did for Senator Whitehouse. If you could
respond a little bit quicker, we would certainly appreciate it,
and it would make our Committee record complete.
Again, thank you for your patience. Thank you for your
testimony and more importantly, thank you for what you have
done to help build this great Nation and keep our people safe.
With that, the hearing will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]