[Senate Hearing 115-25]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-25
FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE: SAFETY
QUESTIONS RAISED BY CURRENT EVENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2017
__________
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
25-784 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 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama KAMALA HARRIS, California
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 1, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESSES
Todd, Lieutenant General, T. Semonite, Commanding General and
Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso............................................. 22
Senator Carper............................................... 24
Senator Wicker............................................... 29
Senator Shelby............................................... 31
Attatchments to Lt. General Semonite's responses to Questions for
the
Record are retained in the files of the Committee
Corbett, Hon. Ron, Mayor, Cedar Rapids, Iowa..................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Wolf, Terry, Hon., Chairman, Washakie County Commissioners,
Wyoming........................................................ 38
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Laird, Secretary John, Deputy Secretary For External Affairs,
California Natural Resources Agency............................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso..... 55
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 56
Larry A. Larson, P.E., CFM, Director Emeritus/Senior Policy
Advisor, Association of State Floodplain Managers Inc.,
Wisconsin...................................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 78
Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker....... 78
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Michael D. Klingner, Chairman of the Upper Mississippii,
Illinois and Missouri Rivers Association (UMIMRA).......... 115
Association of State Dam Safety Officials.................... 118
FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE: SAFETY QUESTIONS RAISED BY CURRENT EVENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Wicker,
Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand,
Booker, Markey, and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
President Trump has made improving our Nation's
infrastructure a top priority, and this Committee is continuing
its effort to highlight our Nation's infrastructure needs.
As I have stated, infrastructure is critical to our
Nation's prosperity. In personal meetings, I have met with
members of this Committee, both sides of the aisle, and I will
tell you that infrastructure is always listed as a top
priority. It is a priority because it is a driver of our
Nation's economy and it impacts every community.
This Committee has a long history of working together in a
bipartisan way on infrastructure issues. I want to continue
that tradition.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has
sweeping jurisdiction over our Nation's infrastructure. Our
last hearing focused on highways and roads, and the needs of
rural water systems, all of which are within this Committee's
purview. Recent natural weather events in the last month in
California and in other western States are highlighting the
need to focus our attention on our levees and our dams and
other structures that prevent catastrophic flooding in both
rural and urban communities.
Earlier this month, more than 180,000 people were evacuated
in California because storms caused serious damage to the
Oroville Dam, the tallest dam in the United States. The
potential threat of dam failure is a serious concern, a concern
to State officials and to people living downstream of Oroville.
Any future severe weather event could make the situation even
more critical, and it is raising questions about the readiness
of our flood prevention infrastructure.
Dams and levees across the Country need to be modernized
and maintained if we are to prevent future disasters. So I
believe any infrastructure bill that this Committee develops
should consider the need to maintain and modernize these
structures.
Winter weather events aren't just affecting California, but
are occurring across the West, hitting towns big and small.
These events include ice jam flooding in Northern Wyoming along
the Big Horn River, in the towns of Worland, Manderson,
Greybull, as well as towns located to the south like Riverton,
Lander, Hudson, and areas of the Wind River Reservation.
This past month the ice jam floods have damaged over 100
homes in Worland, a city of roughly 5,000 people, so these
floods have serious and lasting impacts.
In the past, blocks of ice the size of cars sit for weeks
on playgrounds and front lawns. The river ice damages
everything from public structures like water treatment plants
and public parks to private homes and small businesses. These
ice jams are regular occurrences harming small towns not just
in Wyoming, but in other parts and States from the Dakotas to
UpState New York.
For these small towns, the cost of cleanup and repair is an
enormous burden from which it takes months to fully recover. In
certain instances, flooding could be mitigated by the Army
Corps providing more flexibility in allowing towns to take the
steps they need to protect their communities.
Our Committee has jurisdiction over the environmental laws
that impact the modernization of infrastructure. Oftentimes, in
rural States, Federal one-size-fits-all rules can have absurd
results on the ground. If we are moving a tree or a pile of
dirt which might only take days to accomplish can make a
difference in preventing a catastrophic flood, a town shouldn't
have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic process to remove
those features while the town floods yearly.
Bureaucratic red tape should be cut where people's lives
and property are on the line, which is always the case when we
are talking about flooding.
Dams and levees are the most common infrastructure to
address flooding. However, new technology can also help
mitigate the threat of flooding, including ice jams. I include
language in Title I of the Water Resources Development Act this
Committee enacted last Congress creating an Army Corps Pilot
Program to develop innovative and cost-saving technology to
address the threat of ice jams. The program needs to be
implemented.
I would also like to note that in the past two WRDA bills
this Committee provided additional authority to both the Corps
and to FEMA to help States, local governments, and dam owners
address deficient levees and dams. It is time to implement
these authorities.
I also would like to hear what else this Committee and the
Army Corps can do to improve existing infrastructure, building
new infrastructure, reduce red tape, and develop lifesaving
technology and materials to prevent flooding.
Now, with that, I now want to turn to Ranking Member Carper
for his statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much for
bringing us together.
We welcome all of you. We are glad that you are here. You
could be at a lot of different places, but it is important that
you be here. We look forward to your testimonies and to the
opportunity to ask some questions, just to have a good
conversation.
The Chairman and I talk a lot about Mike Enzi's 80/20 rule.
Mike Enzi is a Senator from Wyoming and he talks about the 80/
20 rule as something that he and Ted Kennedy used to lead
something called HELP, the Health, Education, and Pension
Committee. And I would say to him, how does one of the most
liberal Democrats and one of the most conservative Republicans
get so much done, provide leadership to this Committee? And
Mike said, we believe in the 80/20 rule. I said, what is that?
And he said, Ted and I agree on 80 percent of the stuff, we
disagree on 20 percent of the stuff, and what we focus on is
the 80 percent where we agree.
Senator Barrasso and I agree on a lot. We especially agree
on the need to invest wisely in infrastructure. Fortunately, it
is not an especially partisan issue, as we heard last night in
the President's State of the Union Address, although it was
preciously short on how to pay for stuff, which is always the
challenge, how to pay for stuff. It is easy to figure out how
to spend the money; not so easy to figure out how to pay for
it.
Democratic Senators continue to press for a consensus on
the issue of infrastructure. It appears to me that we are one
of the few Senate committees here, EPW, really talking about
working on a bill in a bipartisan comprehensive way and intent
on doing that, and I applaud our Chairman for his leadership
there and for Jim Inhofe's leadership before that. I believe
that members on both sides of the aisle feel an urgent need to
move forward on a comprehensive infrastructure package, but in
a thoughtful way, rather than to kick the can down the road,
something that we are pretty good at here.
As a recovering Governor, I judge any legislation that
makes these kinds of investments by asking a simple question,
and that question is this: How does this proposal, whatever the
proposal of the day is, how does it help create a more
nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation?
That is what I actually ask.
In addition to answering that question, I also believe
something Lincoln used to say when Lincoln was asked a long
time ago what is the role of government, and he replied,
famously, the role of government is to do for the people what
they cannot do for themselves. Wise words.
Flood control investments are not ones that average
citizens can make for themselves, as you know. Not only do the
construction of dams and levees create jobs, but these
investments can also support local economies, help drive
commerce, and put our communities on a path to civility.
One of the things that businesses need most is
predictability and certainty, and they don't need floods and
the kind of havoc that can create for their community and for
their businesses. So it is important that we make investments,
because when dams and levees fail, they can result in loss of
life and, as we know, economic destabilization and even
economic devastation.
But as we work through this hearing and other
infrastructure oversight and policy decisions, I think that we
will struggle with maybe two central points. One is what is the
role of Federal, State, and local government in addressing
these infrastructure concerns, and, also, are the three levels
of government up to the challenge. Are the three levels of
government up to the challenge?
Something called the McKinsey Global Institute put out a
2013 report that you may be familiar with that said that we
need to invest between $150 billion and $180 billion a year
more in infrastructure at large just to make up for years of
underinvestment that is hindering our Country on a multitude of
levels, from limiting economic growth to threatening our
personal safety.
This comprehensive report, which I commend for your
reading, looks at all components of infrastructure, but this
message of drastic need is easily applicable to what we are
talking about today, and that is flood control.
The same report found that one of the best ways to invest
and get the most out of our dollars is to maintain existing
infrastructure. That probably doesn't come as a surprise to any
of you. But whether it is a bridge or a dam, our Government has
a fundamental responsibility to make sure that those structures
are sound and continue to serve for their intended purpose,
including protecting the lives that are impacted by the bridge
or a dam's very existence.
As I mentioned earlier, infrastructure investment is
critical for our economy in part because of the direct jobs we
create from the construction and from the restoration work, as
well as the displaced workers that we can bring back into our
work force. They want to work. If they can actually do this
work, then let's turn them loose. But just as important are the
lives and property that are protected by these projects.
I am particularly looking forward to hearing from our
friends from California, the Secretary of Natural Resources,
John Laird, on his experience with the Oroville Dam and about
California's nationally recognized flood safety program. I
think it is critically important that we learn from each
other's experience and that we take that shared knowledge
forward through the legislative process.
In closing, the critical infrastructure of our Country is
aging and in need of significant capital investment to help our
economy continue to grow. The 2013 infrastructure report card
issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers gave us a D,
as in dog, to roads, drinking water, wastewater infrastructure;
and then waterways and levees received a D-; ports of sea,
bridges about a C+.
As we hear testimony, I am particularly interested in
hearing how our witnesses think about the roles of the
different levels of government, where there are gaps that need
to be filled, and as it relates to protecting investing in and
maintaining critical infrastructure such as levees and dams.
The concept of shared responsibility has been an
overarching theme in many of our conversations. I am sure we
will continue that conversation today.
I also hope to hear some thoughts on the concept of natural
infrastructure protection as it relates to flood safety.
Finally, while traditional forms of infrastructure like
roads and ports are essential to our economy, I feel that we
need more investment to protect our natural infrastructure as
well, such as our shorelines and our wetland ecosystems, and
thanks very much to the Army Corps for all you do in that
regard. Without these protections, risks to manmade
infrastructure significantly increase and in many cases become
unmanageable.
Finally, I am interested in how the Federal Government can
be more efficient with our current funding streams and get the
most out of every dollar of Federal investment, and I want to
know how we can make sure that we are prioritizing the most
critical investments and ensuring that we maintain the assets
we have first, before building new assets that we can't afford.
No one-size-fits-all approach to solve our problems. We
have to work across the aisle. I am encouraged that under the
leadership of this man here we will.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would ask unanimous consent that
the testimony of American Rivers be submitted for the record,
please.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
[The referenced information follows:]
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. We have a number of guests here.
Senator Ernst, could I invite you to please introduce your
guest to the Committee?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you,
as well, for holding this important hearing today, and thank
you for working with me to extend an invitation to a great
Iowan on the panel today. I am pleased to introduce the mayor
of Cedar Rapids, Mr. Ron Corbett, to this Committee. Mayor
Corbett has been working tirelessly on behalf of the citizens
of Cedar Rapids securing State and local funding to rebuild his
community after the 2008 flood, and what they have done is
truly impressive.
But critical assistance from the Corps is also needed to
complete Cedar Rapids' flood risk management project, and this
is something Mayor Corbett has been leading the charge on for
years now. Cedar Rapids and communities across my State are in
need of Corps assistance, but have run into hurdles trying to
navigate the bureaucracy within the Corps and OMB. They just
point fingers at each other, and it is an issue that we are
trying to work through and resolve not just for the people of
Cedar Rapids, for many communities across the State of Iowa and
the Nation.
So we continue working through this. We also know that the
city of Des Moines also has important levee work that needs to
be done, and Cedar Falls has been working on a 408 permit
application that still isn't approved.
In addition, how the current system is set up to calculate
the economic benefits of flood control projects places Iowans
at a disadvantage. The current metrics that the Corps and the
Administration use prioritizes building beaches in front of
multimillion dollar oceanfront homes over protecting the people
of Cedar Rapids because the calculations are based on property
value.
Cedar Rapids is Iowa's second largest city, and its success
is critical to the economic well-being of the entire State.
They have endured two significant flooding events in 8 years
that have cost billions of dollars in devastation and recovery
aid. The Corps has some discretion to help, and have simply
made the decision to forego the assistance, even though the
community worked with the Corps to develop a project to address
that flood risk and worked with Congress to get it authorized.
So I look forward to the discussion today and, Mayor
Corbett, thank you. I know you will be detailing for this
Committee Cedar Rapids' very, very important story.
I am also eager to continue my conversation with you,
General Semonite, thank you for being here today, to see if we
can move forward on this.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
Senator Harris, could I invite you to introduce your guest?
Senator Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Carper for scheduling this important hearing, as recent events
in my home State highlight the necessity of Congress's support
in assisting our State and local partners to maintain, repair,
and upgrade our Nation's aging infrastructure, and especially
when it comes to critical systems that could threaten the
public safety of all Americans.
It is my distinct pleasure to introduce the Secretary of
the California Natural Resources Agency, John Laird. Secretary
Laird has over 40 years of experience working in public
service, ranging from a budget analyst for then-U.S.
Representative Jerome Waldie, a local elected official as Santa
Cruz City Councilman and Mayor, and as a State legislator where
he chaired the California Assembly budget committee. And I had
the pleasure of working with him throughout those years, both
when I was district attorney of San Francisco and as attorney
general.
In his current role as Secretary of Natural Resources, he
manages California's ecological and cultural resources, water
reserves and supplies, and statewide environmental policies.
Within his agency, he oversees 30 sub-departments, including
the California Department of Water Resources, which is the lead
agency working around the clock to repair Oroville Dam and to
prevent catastrophic flooding.
Mr. Chairman, last week Secretary Laird and I had a chance
to tour the Oroville Dam together, and he had an extraordinary
understanding of the technical needs of the dam and levee
infrastructure. I also want to comment that as he and I both
noticed, it was an extraordinary example at the dam of Federal,
State, and local agencies coming together to meet a need that
was really a crisis in terms of its proportion. We saw folks
that ranged from members of the National Guard, the United
States Navy, FEMA, and California Emergency Services, together
with the local sheriff, Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea, who
came together to meet the challenge and the need, and they did
it in a seamless way.
And it goes without saying that Secretary Laird has
extensive knowledge of the needs of our Nation and the needs
that we should consider when it comes to sufficiently
maintaining our infrastructure and flood management systems.
This, combined with his budgetary experience at all levels of
Government, can shed light on how Congress should leverage
funding streams to help address our aging infrastructure.
I know that in California alone there are approximately
1,400 dams, and nearly half of those are designated as ``high
hazard potential dams'' by State officials. Realizing the
devastation that could be caused by an aging dam
infrastructure, California has invested approximately $11
billion in flood control management in the past decade to
protect nearly 7 million people and $580 billion worth of
assets, which include buildings, farmland, and crops, that are
at risk.
The need for improvements aren't solely in California. For
example, in States like Wyoming, we have invested more than
$1.2 billion of their State's funding for water infrastructure
improvements, water storage, and supply projects, recycled and
wastewater management and treatment, and drought and emergency
relief water programs since 1975.
In addition, according to the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials, it is estimated that non-federally owned dams
throughout our Nation represent 96 percent of all dams in the
United States and would need more than $60 billion to
sufficiently repair, which is a third of the cost that is
urgently needed to repair the high hazard dams identified by
the Association. This demonstrates that the need is great
across our Nation, and that is why I greatly appreciate the
Chairman's willingness to continue prioritizing this
conversation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
on this Committee to continue Federal support that is necessary
and yet critical to maintain our infrastructure nationwide.
I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Secretary. Welcome.
And I appreciate all the members of the Committee and other
witnesses for being here to discuss this crucial topic. Thank
you.
Senator Inhofe.
[Presiding.] Well, thank you, Senator Harris. That was a
very nice introduction.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Let me explain to everyone where we are
today. I am alone. We have votes going on. I have already voted
the first time. Several others will be voting and coming back.
Now, I would say this, though, that there is staff from each
member who is here today, so we are going to start with opening
statements, and we will start with you, General Semonite. And
if Senator Barrasso is not back, we are going to skip you, I
say to our next witness, and go to the third, because he wants
to be here during your opening statement.
General, you are on.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE, COMMANDING
GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Semonite. Chairman Barrasso, Senator Inhofe,
Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the
Committee, I am Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, Commanding
General of the Corps of Engineers and the 54th Chief of
Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
discuss the role of the United States Army Corps of Engineers
in dam and levee safety.
One of the Corps' primary objectives in constructing,
operating, and maintaining dam and levee infrastructure is to
reduce risk to public safety. Our efforts in this area are part
of a larger array of management practices aimed to ensure our
Nation is postured to safely enjoy a range of water resources
benefits. For dam and levee safety, the Corps uses a risk-
informed approach to ensure that these objectives are met in a
transparent and disciplined manner.
Water plays a central role in the strength of our economy,
the health of our community, and the diversity of our
ecosystems. Unfortunately, many of our Nation has experienced
what happens when we have too little water, too much water, or
water that is not fit to consume or sustain natural habitat. In
many ways the decisions that we have made as a Nation in
developing, managing, and protecting our water resources have
influenced how the Nation developed and where its people now
live. The Nation's water resource infrastructure includes dams
and levees built by the Federal Government, States, local
authorities, and the private sector. Sustaining the benefits of
these structures requires the appropriate investment of
resources and the proper management of the risks that come with
those benefits.
Although often planned and constructed as individual
projects, many of our Nation's dams and levees now operate as
integrated components of a much larger water resource
management system. The Corps owns and operates only a small
fraction of the dams and levees in the Nation. Our portfolio
includes 715 dams, which is less than 1 percent of over 90,000
structures identified in a 2016 national inventory of dams. The
Corps also operates and maintains roughly 2,500 miles of
levees, which is less than 10 percent of the roughly 30,000
miles now in the national levee inventory. From a functional
perspective, the Corps generally constructed the dams and
levees that it owns and operates to provide navigation or flood
risk management benefits. However, many of these structures
also support other uses, such as hydropower, water supply, and
recreation.
Over time, these facilities have aged and deteriorated, and
can only sustain their intended function with regular
maintenance and periodic rehabilitation. In addition, many
external factors will complicate efforts to sustain the
viability of this infrastructure. Variables ranging from the
frequency and intensity of natural hydrologic and seismic
events to the sizes of the populations living and working near
the infrastructure compound the difficulty of decisionmaking.
The Corps is addressing these challenges in a risk-informed
manner. We make informed adjustments to ensure that resources
are invested in an efficient and technically robust manner. For
example, our dam safety program enables the Corps to extend the
period that a project can provide some or all of its authorized
benefits by investing in measures that reduce the principal
safety risk at our dams to an acceptable level.
When it comes to addressing our Nation's dam and levee
safety challenges, the Corps' responsibilities generally follow
project-specific authorities for managing infrastructure that
the Corps owns and operates. The Corps also has programmatic
authorities for participating in the national community of dam
and levee safety. In reaching decisions on potential safety
measures at the dams or levees that it owns and operates, the
Corps considers the public safety, economic and environmental
risks posed by the infrastructure, the cost of reducing those
risks, and the authorized project benefits that a proposed
safety improvement would enable the project to continue to
provide to society.
In summary, dams and levees are an important part of the
Nation's water resource initiative. Management practices are
aimed to ensure our Nation is well positioned to safely monitor
and manage water resource infrastructure. For the dams and
levees that our Corps owns and operates, we are working to
balance the cost, responsibilities, risks and benefits in order
to inform our decisions that guide the safe operation, proper
maintenance, and effective management of risk. A similar
framework of risk-informed management may also help meet these
objectives for decisions on the safety of other dams and levees
across the Nation.
I am honored to lead the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
and look forward to answering your questions. Senator Carper
asked is the Government up to this challenge. The Corps of
Engineers is up to this challenge. The vision of the Corps is
to be able to engineer solutions for the Nation's most critical
challenges. We have the capacity and the competency to do just
that.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of General Semonite follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General Semonite.
Commissioner Wolf, we will pass over you temporarily and go
to Mayor Corbett.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON CORBETT, MAYOR,
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA
Mr. Corbett. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking
Member Carper, Senator Ernst, Senators and staff members. On
behalf of the citizens of Cedar Rapids and the people of
eastern Iowa that work every day in Cedar Rapids, thanks for
giving us an opportunity to tell our story today.
In June 2008, the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids crested more
than 10 feet above any previous flood, at 31 feet. The
unthinkable happened. The floodwaters covered 10 square miles,
which is 14 percent of our city. 6,865 residential properties,
754 commercial industrial properties, 310 city facilities were
damaged, totaling more than $5.4 billion in losses. The flood
devastated our residents, our businesses, our entire community.
But not all was lost. There are two things we didn't lose,
Senators. One, we didn't lose any lives. Thanks to our
emergency response team and the hundreds of boat rescues, no
lives were lost in our community. And if you think about it, in
the various disasters in each of your respective States and
around the Country, oftentimes, during the news reports of the
disaster, included in those reports is the death toll; and in
Cedar Rapids no lives were lost. And in some bizarre way, today
we feel, 9 years later, the fact that we were so successful in
saving lives, that maybe goes against us.
And the second thing that wasn't lost was our will to
rebuild our city stronger and better than what it was before
the flood.
So as damaging and catastrophic of the 2008 floods, our
recovery has been equally impressive by any standard. With your
help, through FEMA, HUD, the Justice Department, along with the
State and local government, the private sector, the nonprofit
sector, the faith community, we began that journey to rebuild
Cedar Rapids building by building, house by house, neighborhood
by neighborhood. That included our infrastructure of water and
sewer. Quite remarkable.
But as we were rebuilding, we always had one eye on the
future, and that future meant a permanent flood protection
system in Cedar Rapids. That confidence that our business
community had and our residents had to reinvest, and the
momentum that we have gained, has all been based on having
long-term flood protection. So from the beginning we have been
working with the Corps, and we were so anxious when the Corps
was ready to reveal their plan for Cedar Rapids, only to unveil
the plan that protected just one side of the river.
Imagine being a mayor or a resident of a community when you
are told you are allowed to protect one side, but the other
side isn't. How do you say that lives on one side of your river
are worthy, but lives on the other side of the river are not
worthy?
I asked why, and they said it is because of the benefit-
cost ratio, a formula, some algorithm. Senators, we don't
govern Cedar Rapids based on an algorithm. We rejected the
benefit-cost ratio and worked with the State to develop a
funding mechanism to protect the west side.
So here we are, 9 years later, finding ourselves again
disadvantaged by the benefit-cost ratio. It is based on value
of property. And when Cedar Rapids is compared to other
communities around the Country, we come up a little shorter
because the values in our community or smaller Midwestern
States just are not equal to the value in the larger
communities.
This past September we had another event. We were able to
win this time over the river, so we have evened the score. The
river 1, community now 1. But now we know it is not a question
of if it will flood again, but when. And we need to have that
long-term flood protection for our community, so again,
Senators, we seek your help.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corbett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso.
[Presiding.] Well, thank you very much, Mayor Corbett.
You may have noticed people are coming and going. We are in
the middle of two votes, so we will continue to come back and
forth.
At this time, though, I would like to turn to Commissioner
Terry Wolf, who is Chairman of the Washakie County Commission
in Worland, Wyoming. He is a former member of the Wyoming Army
National Guard, has a degree in administration of justice from
the University of Wyoming.
Commissioner Wolf moved back to Worland in 1995 to work in
the oil and gas industry. Upon transitioning out of the
National Guard, Commissioner Wolf ran for a seat on the
Washakie County Commission, was sworn into office January 2003.
He was past President of the Wyoming County Commissioners
Association, currently Vice President of the Wyoming
Association of County Officers. Also serves on the National
Association of Counties Public Land Steering Committee, and
during his 15 years as a county commissioner he has represented
the county as a Federal cooperating agency on the Big Horn
National Forest Plan revision and the Big Horn Basin BLM
Resource Management Plan revision.
So I want to welcome you to the Committee, Commissioner
Wolf. I want to thank you for agreeing to testify here today. I
see you have a number of other commissioners from the State of
Wyoming who are here to cheer you on, and I see Pete
Obermueller here, who is also the Executive Director of the
Wyoming County Commission Association.
Commissioner Wolf.
STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY WOLF, CHAIRMAN, WASHAKIE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, WYOMING
Mr. Wolf. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Terry Wolf. I am
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners in Washakie
County, Wyoming. Washakie County is located in rural northwest
Wyoming, with an annual revenue of only $8 million. It is the
third poorest county in Wyoming. Washakie is one of four
counties in the Big Horn Basin. You can find a map in Appendix
A in my written testimony. This area of Wyoming is well known
for its sugar beets that are grown and processed into pure
U.S.-made sugar for consumption. The high yield of agriculture
production is dependent upon the Big Horn River.
Unfortunately, this same river that brings so much life
also brings destruction to our communities in the spring when
ice blocks the size of trucks and weighing up to 300,000 pounds
jam up and block the flow of the river. The ice jams push the
water over the banks and into the communities in Worland,
Manderson, Basin, and Greybull, flooding homes and businesses
and threatening the sugar processing plant that I already
mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, I want to direct your attention to the before
and after photos on the easel of the flooding that occurred in
Worland on February 11th of this year. In the before photos you
can see, in the foreground, an island in the middle of the
river that was formed from sediment buildup over the course of
years. In the after photos you get a clear picture of the ice
blocks creating a dam at that island and causing the flooding.
Over the course of a week, city, county, State officials,
the Wyoming National Guard, and numerous volunteers worked
tirelessly to protect public and private property and critical
infrastructure threatened by the flood. We are still evaluating
total cost to our communities in damage cleanup, but estimates
will likely exceed $150,000.
While this flood is heartbreaking by itself, what is
important for the Committee to know is what happened in Worland
a couple weeks ago is almost identical to the flooding in 2014.
That same island gathered and held ice blocks and pushed over
the Big Horn River into Worland, costing State and local
governments nearly $200,000 in recovery costs. For a rural
county like Washakie, these costs are difficult to bear.
For a clear picture of the sediment buildup on this island,
I direct your attention to the next aerial photos that show the
20-year span of buildup on that island. We at the local level
must confront this issue because the exact same flooding is
likely to occur year after year, depending on the severity of
the winter. Following the 2014 flood, we pursued the
possibility of removing the island. Initial estimates at the
time indicated that the removal of 1.7 acres of area at a depth
of at least 5 feet, requiring 1,700 truckloads would ensure
free-flowing passage of ice blocks.
While a project like this is very small for an agency like
the Army Corps, it is much too large for a community as small
as ours to tackle on our own. Section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to partner
with local and State agencies on small damage reduction
projects not specifically authorized by Congress. While we
initially pursued a Section 205 project in 2015, we backed off
after inquiries uncovered the likelihood of difficult and
expensive bureaucratic hurdles and the potential of more
stringent environmental permits to remove the sediment island.
Additionally, while the Federal share of costs associated
with these small projects is significant, we were concerned
that the local share was still much more than the rural
agricultural-based county could meet. Finally, it appeared that
the Army Corps simply hadn't used the Section 205 program for
ice jams to the extent it had for other more traditional flood
damage control measures in other areas of the Country and,
therefore, may not have believed it had the flexibility
necessary to deal effectively with the problem.
With that in mind, we were pleased to see Congress include
language specific to ice jams in the Water Infrastructure
Improvement Act for the Nation, passed just 2 months ago, in
December 2016. That language requires that the Corps identify
and carry out not fewer than 10 projects to demonstrate
technologies and designs developed to prevent and mitigate
flood damages associated with ice jams.
Removal of the island appears to be the solution to our
flooding in Worland, but at the local level we are flexible
enough to explore other options if the Army Corps is flexible
enough to make use of this new language to research and explore
cost-effective technologies to mitigate what is likely to be a
repeated disaster in our area. We remain concerned about the
monetary and human capital costs associated with these
projects. However, Washakie County stands ready to work
alongside the Army Corps of Engineers on any viable and cost-
effective solution for the protection of our community. We hope
that Washakie County and the Big Horn River will be among the
first of the cold region pilot projects.
Seasonal runoff or unique weather events are things over
which we have no control, but floods caused by ice jams and a
sediment island in the Big Horn River is something we can
control with the Assistance of the Army Corps of Engineers. I
am here to ask both the Corps and for your help to ensure that,
as you move forward with funding infrastructure projects of
great importance to the Nation, you do not forget about these
small projects in rural areas that are of critical importance
to our local communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much, Commissioner
Wolf. We look forward to questions.
If we could turn now to Secretary John Laird. Mr.
Secretary.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY JOHN LAIRD, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
Mr. Laird. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and also
Ranking Member Carper, Senator Harris, and members of the
Committee. On behalf of the State of California and Governor
Brown, I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
before this Committee at this particularly vital time on our
issues.
As you know, our Nation's aging infrastructure is at a
crossroads. One path is characterized by inaction, putting
human lives, our natural resources, and the economy at risk;
another path is shaped by deliberative policies, meaningful
investment, coordination across all levels of government, and
the incorporation of new science that can provide multiple
benefits to common outcomes. Right now California approaches
this situation with a sense of urgency.
Droughts and floods have always driven the evolution and
growth of California water policy investment and scientific/
technical understanding. This year is no different.
But after 5 years of the driest seasons in modern times,
California is now in the midst of what is likely to be the
wettest season on record, in the history of recordkeeping in
California. This just demonstrates that California has the most
variable weather of any State in the Nation and often depends
on the bounty of just four or five storms per season to support
our water system.
The number, size, and severity of storms this water year
has strained the State's flood control and water management
infrastructure, forcing evacuations, damaging roads, destroying
homes, communities, and livelihoods. It is estimated that
damage to California's highways alone from the storms this year
is $595 million thus far.
Most dramatically, damage to the main spillway on the
Oroville Dam, the second largest reservoir in California, and,
as the Chair said in his opening comments, the largest dam in
the Nation, serves as the keystone of the California water
project, and it was observed on February 7th by water managers.
Damage to the main spillway and rapid erosion of the emergency
spillway led to the emergency evacuation of nearly 200,000
downstream residents in Yuba, Sutter, and Butte Counties.
With crews working around the clock, the danger has since
passed and residents have returned home. The reservoir remains,
right now, at least 50 feet below the capacity level, and
repairs continue as dam operators plan for an extended flood
season due to an extremely high snowpack.
Over the last decade alone, over $11 billion has been spent
by Federal, State, and local agencies in California on flood
control projects. California's extraordinary response to this
year's storms was only possible due to local, State, and
Federal cooperation and significant prior investments.
California has the leading dam safety program in the
Nation, as recognized in a peer review by the Association of
State Dam Safety Officials. But we can and must always do
better.
This event has drawn much needed attention to the age,
condition, maintenance, and financial needs of California and
the Nation's flood control and water management systems. We
should use the opportunity that is presented by this situation
to invest in existing infrastructure and fund innovative
projects that leverage science to meet the challenge of extreme
weather and variable precipitation, and accomplish multiple
benefits and goals within the investment.
While we welcome the partnership, California is not waiting
for the Federal Government alone to meet this urgent need and
real opportunity. As a first step, last Friday, Governor Brown
redirected $50 million from the State's General Fund and
requested a $387 million Proposition 1 appropriation from the
State legislature to fund near-term flood control and emergency
response actions.
To complement the immediate actions of our State agencies,
as Secretary of Natural Resources, I have requested the
following actions from our partner Federal agencies: that we
expand inspection and review of all federally owned dams in
California and parallel to California's efforts; to update the
Federal operating manuals for key California reservoirs. It is
imperative to revise these manuals to reflect current
scientific knowledge. The Corps needs to be fully funded to
complete these updates or allow non-Federal authorities to
finance the work. My letter asked that we fund the recently
enacted Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act,
which authorizes a program for rehabilitation of high hazard
dams at FEMA. Also, prioritize the publication of the program's
rules to assist California and other States in this
rehabilitation effort.
So we have an opportunity and we really look forward to
working with our Federal partners, and I look forward to being
able to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laird follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for being with us and
for sharing your insight, Secretary Laird.
Mr. Larson.
STATEMENT OF LARRY A. LARSON, P.E., CFM, DIRECTOR EMERITUS/
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS
INC., WISCONSIN
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and the rest of the Committee staff.
I have been working in the water resources profession for
55 years. In fact, my first job out of engineering school was
to work for the California DWR on the State water project,
which, as you know, the Oroville Dam is the key.
I also, for 25 years, ran the dam safety program and the
floodplain management program in the State of Wisconsin.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers represents
17,000 professionals across the Nation who manage flood risks
to reduce flood losses every day. This includes both structural
and non-structural approaches, such as land use, building
permits, community planning, mapping, stormwater management,
and the rest. We have been very concerned about the status of
the Nation's flood risk management infrastructure, and in light
of the ever-increasing rainfall intensity we get even more
worried.
Some of our major concerns include this. Flood damages in
the Nation are really unknown. We don't know how much floods
cost us every year. That is a real problem.
Flood mapping. In order for communities and States to
effectively manage flood risk, they need flood maps, and good
flood maps. Of the 3.5 million miles of rivers and coastlines
in the United States, the NFIP has mapped about 1.5 of them,
and only half of that has a 100-year flood elevation that they
need to regulate properties.
The NFIP maps are the base flood maps used by all those
22,000 communities, all the States, and all the Federal
agencies. They may build off of them, but they start with them.
The NFIP now has a good process for mapping and could map
all communities in the Nation in 12 years if fully funded as
authorized.
Topography is also key. The USGS has a digital elevation
program called 3DEP, and they, if funded, can do the mapping
for the Nation in the next 8 years.
Residual risk mapping. One of the key areas this Nation has
ignored is residual risk, below dams and behind levees, areas
that will flood when structures either overtop or fail.
However, even if dam failure maps are available, Federal
Government policy is not to release the maps to the public. We
don't quite understand that. No one knows how the risk is if
they are in a risk zone. It is not appropriate that they find
that out at 2 a.m., when law enforcement knocks on their door
and says you have to leave. We must figure out how to solve
that problem.
And we must be forward-thinking on national standards. We
need standards for dams and levees both. You in Congress have
set up programs in the Corps to develop levee standard and FEMA
to develop dam standards. Neither of those are funded, however,
and we must get on with that.
Add to this low standard the fact that we have mapped and
built flood infrastructure to yesterday's flood, and not
tomorrow's flood, I am pleased to hear that I think California
is doing more of that all the time, and the rest of us need to
do that too. We need to figure out how to keep those low hazard
dams from becoming high hazard dams because development occurs
downstream. There are a couple of States that have figured that
out, and we need to do it nationally.
We are pleased to see the Congress and Administration
looking at the issue of infrastructure, but our experience
shows that financial incentives are very difficult to apply to
these projects versus other kinds of projects. Private
financing will not suffice. We are going to have substantial
Federal investment in this, as well as State and local
investment.
Private investors tell us that they need national standards
to ensure that what they are funding, or might fund, is
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to appropriate
national standards. Investments should look beyond structural
flood control. Non-structural projects, stormwater management,
green infrastructure, nature-based approaches are appropriate.
Funding should also serve to help build State capability.
You realize only the States have the authority to oversee
private dams and levees. The Federal Government cannot tell a
private dam or levee owner to fix a dam or fix a levee; the
States have that authority, if they use it. I have run programs
that do have that.
You set up some process in WIIN to build State capability
in dams, but that must be funded to get underway. It is a smart
investment of taxpayer money.
In conclusion, the U.S. is facing a substantial need to
repair and upgrade, and sometimes remove, our flood control
structure. If you simply appropriated the programs you have
already authorized in the flood risk management program, the
3DEP, the national levee safety program, the national dam
safety program, we would make a big step. The threatened
failure of Oroville Dam and the actual failure of 80 dams in
South Carolina in the past 2 years points out that we have a
public wake-up call.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe.
[Presiding.] Thank you. I just noticed, it was called to my
attention, that Senator Grassley has come and seated behind
Mayor Corbett. Did you want to be recognized for anything?
Senator Grassley. I didn't come here to mess anything up.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Well, then don't mess anything
up. That's good.
Senator Grassley. I just wanted to make sure you understand
that Iowa, and particularly Cedar Rapids----
[inaudible].
Senator Inhofe. Well, I didn't tell him that Cumberland and
Anita, Iowa is where all of my family was born, so we are
sensitive to those problems.
I will begin, because the Chairman is voting now, then we
will go to Senator Carper.
General Semonite, in my hometown of Tulsa we have nearly 20
miles of levee, a system that was built by the Corps of
Engineers back in the 1940's. We have about 10,000 people
living within that. We have $2 billion of infrastructure,
including a refinery, a very large refinery. Seventy years old,
they are desperate and in need of repair and upgrades. Congress
authorized a feasibility study and expedited budget
consideration in last year's WIIN Act. That was our effort.
With the risk assessment taking over a year longer than
promised, Tulsa is concerned about more delays in the lack of
the Corps prioritizing the project. It is my hope that we can
get this done.
Now, I am sure that you looked at that before, in preparing
for this hearing. Our concern is these are old and there is not
a week that goes by when I am back that this isn't called to my
attention. What kind of a commitment can you make that we are
going to get this thing started?
General Semonite. Thanks, Senator. You bring up a good
point. When you talk about levees, I think right now we have
about 15,000 miles of levees that we constructed, but the Corps
actually only has about 2,500 of those that we actually
maintain. So we have to be able to continue to reach out to
find out what can we do to assist. Several people here have
talked about everybody has to pull their share to be able to
work side-by-side. On this particular one, this goes back to
that flood risk management study and to be able to make sure
that we can review this, get this thing done, and understand
how we are going to be able to come through on that.
I don't know exactly the details of where we are at on
that, and I would like to have my staff come back to you on it.
Senator Inhofe. It would be a good idea. And I would like
to ask that you personally look at this because it is something
that should not have gone this long and it is critical.
Second, I only have one more question, then we will go to
Senator Carper. That is, General Semonite, while I have you
here, I wanted to raise a concern of mine. Congress has
authorized and, in fact, made it a priority for the Corps to
work with private partners to develop and maintain recreational
areas at Corps lakes. However, there seems to be an anti-
development mentality within the Corps, at least within the
Tulsa district, that I think needs to be overcome. In fact, I
am going to give you a quote, a senior staff member within the
Tulsa district told my State director, and this is a direct
quote, he said, ``If I had my way, I would end the lake
development altogether.''
I would just like to ask you does this reflect a philosophy
within the Corps that you are willing to talk about?
General Semonite. Sir, it certainly does not reflect our
Corps philosophy. We are very aggressive on continuing to find
many, many different options on recreation. Some of these are
Corps-owned and Corps-maintained. There are other ones where we
have concessions to come in and do recreation.
Senator Inhofe. But is one option to end all development?
General Semonite. No, sir. I think every one of these
projects is different. I don't know the exact details of what
was said, but our philosophy is to continue to look at how we
can continue to partner with the stakeholders and to try to
continue to find a good compromise solution on that. So I will
find out what is out there and get back with you, OK, sir?
Senator Inhofe. Oh, that is good. Thank you, General.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
To our friends, welcome. Senator Grassley, nice to see you
out there in the audience. You have the back of your mayor
there. Good work.
Before I say anything, I just want to say to General
Semonite how much we in the Del Marva Peninsula appreciate the
opportunity to work with the Philadelphia Regional Office. The
folks there, you have terrific people and we are grateful for
all the good that they do with their lives on behalf of the
folks that we serve in Delaware, the eastern shore of Maryland,
eastern shore of Virginia. So thanks.
We sometimes get to work with your folks from the Maryland
office, the Baltimore Office.
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. We are grateful for that too.
Someone mentioned, I don't know, maybe it was Mr. Larson,
somebody mentioned the funding, and I understand that in some
cases we have passed legislation authorizing new support for
non-Federal dam repair and rehabilitation efforts beyond the
traditional Federal role. We haven't appropriated the money. I
am reminded of a law in this Country called mandates, unfunded
mandates law. That is it, unfunded mandates law, where we
basically set standards and say you have to do this, but we
don't provide the money to do it.
I don't know if that is the situation here or not. Is it?
Mr. Larson. Well, that was in the WIIN that set up that
grant program with FEMA. That has not been funded. And the
first thing that has to happen when it is funded is FEMA needs
to put together experts nationwide to put together standards
for dams for design, construction, operation, and maintenance;
and then with that in mind they can set up criteria for which
dams they fund and make sure that the work is done
appropriately. We need those national standards and that
program needs to be funded. Now, that is the one that was just
passed in December, so this is your first crack at trying to
get it funded this round of funding.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
Back to General Semonite. Events such as the near failure
of the spillways at Lake Oroville have further highlighted the
issues and risks associated with dams near populated areas, as
you know. Although the Federal role in dam rehabilitation and
repair traditionally has been focused on rehabilitation of
Federal facilities and support for State dam safety programs,
some have argued for an increased Federal role in non-Federal
dam safety and rehabilitation, sort of following up on what I
was asking Mr. Larson.
But, in particular, recently passed legislation I have
alluded to authorized new support for non-Federal dam repair
and rehabilitation efforts beyond traditional Federal role. The
extent to which these authorities are funded remains to be
seen. We will get a budget from the President and the
Administration hopefully in a couple weeks, and we will have an
opportunity to see what they suggest; do hearings and move
forward.
But, General, aside from funding these critical programs,
what more could the Federal Government do to address the risks
posed by failing levee and dam infrastructure?
General Semonite. Senator, that is a great question, and
this panel today really is the perfect time to ask that
question because these rivers, these flood management
structures are all intertwined. This is a system, so you will
have some Federal, you will have State, local, and private. All
of it has to work together. Anything that one element does is
going to affect the other.
So clearly we have some Federal structures, but I think the
other thing is we have an awful lot of expertise. We have 5,000
certified dam and flood control experts in the Corps that not
only take care of our 715, but are more than available to go to
other places. Oroville is a great example. We have 50 people
out there that have been working for the last several weeks
side-by-side with John's guys to continue to be able to make
sure we are looking at what can we do to mitigate the current
risk, but also to be able to make sure what about be able to
rebuild, and how can we use some of the lessons learned in the
Federal areas to be able to go back in and help the State.
Same thing, some of the things that these gentlemen are
doing here may be great opportunities out in the field. How do
we wrap those back in to learn how to run our Federal systems
better? So I think it is a shared understanding of the
technical competence to be able to make sure that we are all
working side-by-side.
Senator Carper. OK. I was going to ask a question relating
to shared responsibility. I think you pretty well answered
that, so I am going to ask a question, maybe a first cousin of
that.
How can States, particularly smaller States like our State
of Delaware, ones with coastline, coordinate and/or pool
resources to help the Corps complete bigger and more efficient
flood control projects?
General Semonite. Sir, obviously some studies, if there are
some things out there. I mean, we have an unbelievable
relationship all through the vertical team, and our districts
are talking to the States and imbedded in the States, if there
are some things where we think we can lean on some of the State
expertise to be able to help get justification or to be able to
have better understanding of the return on investment. Senator
Barrasso talked about the value of making sure we are making
the taxpayers' dollars go a little bit further. I don't know if
I have an exact answer back into Delaware, but wherever we can
team with this Federal team to be able to make this whole
system more resilient, that is what we are really trying to do.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks so much.
Senator Barrasso.
[Presiding.] Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you. I would like to ask General Semonite a
question, just prefacing it by reminding those who are watching
and the General himself might recall that last summer West
Virginia had one in a thousand-year flood occurrence that took
the lives of, I think, 23 West Virginians lost their life. It
was very fast and the Corps has been trying to repair these
communities and these waterways.
So my question is in the WRDA bill that we passed at the
end of last year, I am just kind of putting this feather back
into your cap to remind you that the Secretary will conduct
studies to determine the feasibility of implementing projects
for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, navigation
water supply, recreation, and other water resources in the
Kanawha River Basin, which is pretty much fully encompassed in
this southern part of West Virginia, but also Virginia and
North Carolina. So I am just asking you, General, to make a
commitment that you are moving forward on that study and what
we might expect from that.
General Semonite. Yes, Senator. We will certainly do that.
You talked about how fast that happened. I think you had 10
inches of rain in less than 24 hours.
Senator Capito. Right.
General Semonite. This is where we are seeing, whether it
is climate change or other hydrological events, the surge of
some of the flash opportunities here is unbelievable and we
have to be able to negate that risk. But we definitely will
have that commitment to continue to support.
Senator Capito. Thank you so much. And that gets me to
another question connected with that particular incident.
Howard's Creek, which is not a large body of water, it sounds
small, it is a larger creek, but it is the one that rose and
really took so many lives so quickly. So when you are looking
at small waterways, is the best use of your resources in these,
because there are so many, you obviously can't be everywhere,
is to train the local, not just State, but even locals to try
to take this opportunity to improve Howard's Creek so this
doesn't happen again? I mean, is that how you move forward from
something like this?
General Semonite. Yes, Senator. There is obviously a lot of
flood fighting that can be done to be able to mitigate this. I
think the mayor from Cedar Rapids made a very good point: all
lives are just as critical; all property is just as important
wherever you are living in the United States. So whether it is
a large facility or a small facility, a large river or a small
stream, we are just as committed to be able to partner to make
sure that we can mitigate those damages that are out there.
If that is not done through structural, and we had some
good discussions here, it is a lot of those other components.
How do you do that through training? How do we make sure that
we have some of the greener aspects to be able to do it,
whether it is zoning and other things? How the vertical team
all represented here can share some of those lessons learned to
be able to make sure communities have that capability, I think
that is an important tool.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you. I think that is good and I
am sure the city of Cedar Rapids had that rapid rise as well,
and it was very costly.
I want to shift to dams. We live in a mountainous State. We
have hundreds, I think 614 dams. Most of them have been
studied, although several of them, high hazard dams, have not
been rated, rated as in r-a-t-e-d. So we can't just tell are
they satisfactory, poor, unsatisfactory, or where their rating
is.
How can we prioritize our projects if we don't have full-
out rating and accurate information on the existing dams that
we have throughout the States?
General Semonite. So, Senator, let me give you at least the
Federal perspective. On our 715 dams, they are rated, we know
exactly where they are at. There are five different rating code
and, if need be, I can tell you exactly where the Federal
inventory and portfolio are with respect to that.
Senator Capito. OK.
General Semonite. I think the challenge is the Federal
rating system, which is a very robust rating system, how does
that then get incorporated into States, local, local
communities, and even private communities so that then,
somewhere, we have the ability to understand how to rack and
sack them. The Corps does run the dam safety data base. We have
12,000 dams that are in that data base. I think we have to go
back and look at the standards, and if there are some areas
where we haven't had the level of fidelity in the rating, then
we will go back and do whatever we can to help advise how we
can do that better.
I am not necessarily aware that there is contention there;
I think it is just how do we continue to do a better job on
that.
Senator Capito. Well, you know, in fall fairness to the
State, the State has six people working in this area. When you
have 700 structures and other issues that they are dealing
with, it is a manpower issue, it is technical issue. So I am
glad to know that, with your expertise at the Corps--and the
Huntington Corps is really most, but we do have some Pittsburgh
Corps too, I want to give them a shout out, they have been very
good. We also have some Baltimore Corps, so they are doing
well. Our State, with its odd shape, we get good exposure to
the Corps. I will say that. And we have lots of water.
So I appreciate your willingness to coordinate with our
State to make sure that we get these dams and these structures
up safe. Also for these fast water occurrences, which we just
had another one again this morning, we need to be able to cope
better on the ground. We are great at recovering and helping
people, but prevention is where we would really like to be. So
I appreciate your input here.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I am delighted
that we are having this issue. I want to take a minute to
respond to the point that Mr. Larson made, which I think is
incredibly important, particularly for us who are here
representing coastal States.
One of the basic facts about climate change is that the
vast majority of the heat that has hit the planet and is
trapped here as a result of climate change, as a result of our
carbon emissions, has been absorbed by the oceans. I see the
General nodding. Of course. The oceans are our great cooling
system, and the excess heat goes into the oceans in enormous
amounts. And there is a very basic physics proposition called
the law of thermal expansion, so when the ocean gets warmer, it
rises. And for coastal States we are seeing real problems. We
have 9 feet of sea level rise projected for this century along
Rhode Island's shores. Nine feet of sea level rise.
This shows itself already in places like this. These are
summer cottages along our Rhode Island coast, and this is after
a recent storm. And the lady who owns that house, I remember
speaking to her. She was about maybe 60-plus years old, and she
remembers as a little girl that house had a yard. They could
play in the yard of it. And on the other side of the yard was a
road that people could drive down to the beach in, and then
there was a little parking area where the cars could park that
had come down the little road, and on the other side of the
little parking area was a beach which she remembers as a little
girl was a long run across the beach in the hot sun to get her
feet into the cool water from the hot sand of the beach.
All of that is gone now and the house has gone into the
sea. We are seeing this over and over and over again, and it is
worsening and it is accelerating. So people may want to quarrel
about climate change here for a variety of reasons, but this is
not funny along our coasts. It is for real.
Here is Downtown Newport just after Sandy, which missed us,
by the way. This is a very small side effect of the big hit
that was nearby. And this is not ordinarily kayakable, as you
can see from the stores that have their floors filled with the
harbor, basically.
So the problem that we have that I would like to make sure
the General is listening to as well is exactly what Mr. Larson
said. He said that when you are dealing with this problem, you
need flood maps, and you need good flood maps; and what we are
preparing for is yesterday's flood and not tomorrow's flood.
I think I have quoted you correctly, Mr. Larson.
In Rhode Island we have done our own independent review of
FEMA's coastal flood mapping, and our Coastal Resources
Management Agency and our university find that the FEMA maps
are, frankly, just dead wrong. They have all sorts of errors.
They fall way short of incorporating experienced levels of
storm surge. They don't accurately reflect dune protection for
the land behind it; they exaggerate dune protection by amounts
that are really astonishing. They rely on very outdated models.
The models are so bad that when they run the transects in the
model along the beach, showing where the harm is going to be,
they find a 5-foot differentiation at the model line in some of
their transects. That is a symptom of a flawed model, when you
have 5-foot differentiations.
And the result is that the flood mapping along our shores,
and I think along other shores as well, is badly erroneous,
which means that a lot of people who are depending on FEMA
flood mapping to assess the risk to their homes are being
misinformed. And we really need to get this right, because if
it is happening in Rhode Island, it is happening everywhere. A
number of the other States that have cross-checked what their
data is against the FEMA models show that the FEMA models are a
failure. When we have asked FEMA to recreate its modeling, they
can't go back and recreate the models, which is another very
strong sign of a failure in the process.
So when I am forced to look at homes like this going into
the water, that families have, in some cases, had for
generations, they have been passed on and on, like I said, this
isn't funny. And it is bad enough when this body won't pay any
attention to climate change, for reasons that I won't go into
here, and it is hitting home in this way in my home State, but
then when we have to try to quantify the damage and we don't
get good information because FEMA simply has it wrong, that is
very significant.
My time has expired. I wanted to emphasize Mr. Larson's
point.
I thank you, Chairman, for hosting this and allowing him to
bring it forward.
General, this is not your Army Corps problem; this is a
FEMA problem, but to the extent that the Army corps and FEMA
interact on so much of this coastal stuff, I want to make sure
you know and take home how badly their mapping fares against a
professional assessment done by the affected States.
With that, I will conclude. I thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Semonite, first of all, thank you for your service.
We appreciate you being here today. We appreciate what you do
on a regular basis. I just wanted to talk a little bit about I
am from South Dakota and we have the Missouri River, which
comes right down to the middle of our State. We have the main
stem dams, which provide a huge amount of benefit and most
certainly has been a good thing for our State, along with all
of the States surrounding us.
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the potential
for Missouri River flooding as a result, this year, of the
snowpack levels and the decrease in available storage capacity
in the Missouri River reservoirs. Through regular communication
with the Corps and the South Dakota Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, it has come to our attention that
mountain snowpack levels are about 133 percent of average
between the Fort Peck and the Garrison basins.
What is the Army Corps' plan to manage water levels in the
Missouri to prevent flooding along the upper Missouri this
year? I know that right now NOAA is predicting above average
precipitation in the coming weeks. Does the Corps have concerns
about the increased risk of flooding that could be caused by
above average rainfall, and what is the Corps doing to address
these concerns? This is one of the major issues that occurred
in 2011 and we have a lot of folks out there that are watching
the fact that we are just at the flood level, just at the base
of the exclusive flood control today. Where is the Corps at
right now and what do you anticipate in terms of your ability
to manage what may very well be some significant inflows?
General Semonite. Senator, great question. Yes, the Corps
is very concerned about snowpack across all of the United
States. We are watching California very, very closely right
now. Through any of these systems, you know, several years ago
we had scenarios where, if you get too much snow, then
obviously you can't be able to bring down the flood pool enough
to be able to absorb that. So we watch it the best we can. This
was authorized in WRDA 2014.
The challenge, I think, is the ability to be able to do the
monitoring and the modeling to do that. Right now we don't
necessarily have appropriated funds to go to the next level to
be able to model that to a higher extreme, so we are doing the
best we can. We are taking the tools that are available. I
think the question is are we able to project what that would
equate to when it comes back to what is going to happen to
those pools.
So that is not a good answer, but the bottom line is we are
always concerned about snowpack. I am not sure that we have the
fidelity right now and the science to be able to understand as
much as we would like to know on how that is going to project.
Senator Rounds. We had major floods in 2011. The Corps
actually did an in-house review and actually asked for outside
folks to come in and help them. They recommended that you have
additional monitoring equipment put into the plains area. That
was in 2014. You have had 2015, 2016, 2017. Now coming up on
2018. This last summer we had field hearings in which
representatives from the Corps told us exactly what you did
just now, and that was you didn't have the appropriation.
I don't think, in looking back at it in our review, that it
has ever even been requested. What I would like to know, No. 1,
is are you planning on putting in a request for it? And, second
of all, if you did, since you are not going to have it this
year, do you have plans to at least attempt to modify by
releasing some early flows so that we don't have the
possibility of the kind of floods that we had in 2011?
General Semonite. Sir, I have to get back with you on that
to be able to make sure I understand exactly the details of
what we are prepared to do. I know there are some funding
challenges. That is not, obviously, acceptable, but the bottom
line is I think we are doing everything we can with the funds
available to be able to project what is going to happen.
We are concerned and we look at what those projections
could be. We clearly have the authority under the water control
manuals to be able to start bringing that water down just based
on the analysis we have right now.
I owe you a better answer, sir, on what we can do to be
able to fix that.
Senator Rounds. There is a real interest on the part of the
upper basin after 2011. A lot of people out there are concerned
right now because they can see the water levels, as well, and
they can read the reports. Do you have any plans for
communication with local communities along the way in terms of
the review that you are doing? In 2011, it seemed to me that
one of the biggest concerns, matter of fact, March 3d of 2011,
in a report in the Omaha Herald, one of the officials indicated
that we are going to be just fine this year, unless it rains.
That is not a way to run a major main stem system, and I am
hoping that is not going to be the comment this year, that we
are relying on lower or less than normal rainfall downstream.
If that is the case, we have real problems.
General Semonite. Yes, sir. And to address your issue on
the collaboration, we are talking every single day back and
forth with the hydraulic experts, back into the State, to the
local communities. We want to be very transparent and
collaborative on how we can do that to make sure that we are
learning from you and you are learning from us. But right now
our goal is to try to continue to be able to bring those
capabilities down to be able to absorb whatever we think we
would project for that snowpack that is coming.
Senator Rounds. Would you continue to provide input or at
least to provide information on at least a biweekly basis to
the local communities about where you are at in the flood
control and any plans you have for some perhaps more stable
early releases to relieve some of the flow along the Missouri
later on?
General Semonite. Sir, I certainly see no reason why we
can't do that. I would think we would be doing it now. Most of
our stuff is, a lot of times, posted on the Web so it can be
24/7, everybody can see what we are doing, we are seeing the
same thing from the State. If there is any reason why we aren't
being as collaborative, as transparent as we should be, I will
fix that.
Senator Rounds. I think more than anything else we really
want to know is whether or not you are prepared, since flood
control is the No. 1 priority along there, that if we are up
into the exclusive flood storage position already, which I
believe we have just entered into in the first week in March,
that you are prepared to begin to take actions to release
perhaps some additional flows to mitigate what might be some
significant flows in a shorter period of time later on.
General Semonite. Senator, I certainly want to try to make
that happen. Every one of those facilities has specific
authorizations and different rule curves on how they will work.
I want to make sure that we are operating inside the
authorities and the parameters that we have established in the
law and those rule curves to be able to make sure we are doing
it.
Yes, I think we want to meet that intent. I want to make
sure, though, that we are doing it in the authority of our
current water control manuals.
Senator Rounds. I know my time has expired, but what I am
getting at, General, and with all due respect, sir, flood
control is the No. 1 priority, and that would be above
navigation needs or above other types of needs. Flood control
is No. 1. Am I correctly stating that?
General Semonite. Sir, life safety, without a doubt, is No.
1.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. And, once
again, thank you for your service. I know you have a tough job
to do there. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Harris.
Senator Harris. Secretary Laird, you and I know about the
longstanding debates in California about water. A very famous
person once said whiskey is for drinking; water is for
fighting. So one place in California that highlights that point
is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Will you talk a little bit about your observations and
analysis of the infrastructure in the Delta? It is often the
subject of debate about where that precious water goes in terms
of the farmers who rely on it and also environmentalists who
are concerned, rightly, about the endangered species that live
in that body of water. And that seems to occupy a lot of the
discussion about the Delta.
But I have a concern about another point, which is that we
may not have that debate if the infrastructure that supports
the Delta is compromised or is weak in any way.
So, please, if you could address that.
Mr. Laird. Thank you, Senator. That is a very good
question. For the uninitiated, all those rivers flow into the
one place, and then through an estuary to the ocean, and there
are hundreds and hundreds of miles of levees that have created
what are known as the Delta Islands, which are farmed, which
have been farmed in a way that now they have dropped to 20 or
25 feet below sea level. And they are protected by levees that
were originally constructed to be agricultural levees and not
high protection urban levees.
And we just had a break in the last 2 weeks in the middle
of a storm. The Delta Island flooded, and it will be hard to
clean up and repair. And the challenges are Senator Whitehouse
mentioned sea level rise. If there is a 1 foot sea level rise,
it would change a flood event in the western Delta from 100
years to 10 years, meaning more frequency.
With the subsidence in these islands, if there were a major
seismic event and a number of these levees failed, salt water
would actually drain from the San Francisco Bay into the Delta
and you would have real difficulty recovering farmland. There
might be an interruption of water supply.
So the question is it is a huge ticket to do all the repair
work that might need to be done. The voters, in 2006, brought
$3 billion to the table. The voters, in 2014, brought $7.5
billion to the table for everything, the flood control we are
talking about here, storage, and some of these levee
improvements. So we know we have a lot to do. We are trying to
do the high priority projects, and it is a complex system.
The one other thing is some of these islands are not very
highly inhabited, so the one where they did the evacuations for
the levee breach in the last 2 weeks, they evacuated 20 homes.
You can imagine if that is the tax base to do the kind of
repairs that need to be done. It looks to State and Federal and
other entities to really help or else you can't complete it.
Senator Harris. And to emphasize the significance of it,
that body of water is the largest estuary on the west coast,
isn't that correct?
Mr. Laird. It is.
Senator Harris. And the farmland that body of water
supports produces 50 percent of the fruits and vegetables
consumed by the Nation.
Mr. Laird. The Federal and State water projects together in
the Central Valley provide water to 3 million acres of
irrigated agriculture. So the question is there could be an
interruption in water supply for that, but there could be just
damage to farmland itself in the Delta with how the breaks
happen.
Senator Harris. So how can my colleagues and I support what
California needs to do to make sure that the infrastructure
around that body of water, in addition to the Oroville Dam, is
supported, understanding that the ramifications are pretty
extreme and national in terms of the exposure and consequence
if we don't repair it?
Mr. Laird. I think that, really, we are bringing all this
money to the table, and the question is, within the flexibility
of the Federal Government, can you have loan guarantees. Only 3
percent of the dams in California are State dams, so there are
some places where there are local districts or there are
private entities, utility companies have a number of these
dams, that a loan guarantee would make all the difference in
terms of them being able to finance the repairs or the upkeep.
And obviously if there is an infrastructure bank or revolving
loan funds or other things, those would be helpful as well.
If you look at the Central Valley of California, it flooded
regularly for 80 years, from statehood into the 1930's, and
there were two reasons: they couldn't correctly measure how
much water was going by and everything that was designed was
not really designed for the capacity. But the Federal
Government stepped in the 1930's and joined with the State and
locals, and, with that breadth of economic support, that
brought the modern flood system with weirs and levees and other
things that Sacramento is second only to New Orleans in danger
from a catastrophic flood event, and it is that effort that has
protected Sacramento and other areas in that time.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Harris.
Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mayor Corbett, thanks again for being here. Mayor, do you
believe the safety of your citizens and the economic security
of your region is vulnerable because you haven't been able to
get the critical assistance that we talked about earlier from
the Corps? And, if so, could you explain further on that?
Mr. Corbett. Thank you, Senator. Yes, our community is
vulnerable not just from a life safety standpoint, but from an
economic standpoint. As I made mention in my opening remarks,
the recovery of Cedar Rapids has been phenomenal, as we
actually gained population in the last census and the business
community has reinvested in our town. So we do have that
momentum and that restored confidence in our community.
Now, we haven't sat idly by the last 9 years since the
flood. We have actually been working locally to incorporate
flood mitigation efforts in our town. Right after the flood,
the recession hit 4 months later. Our own citizens voted for a
sales tax referendum, an increase of one penny for 60 months,
to help provide additional resources to our community; and our
State government stepped up. You know it very well, you were
there in the State legislature and approved a funding mechanism
when the Corps, through the cost-benefit ratio, said that they
could only even recommend protecting the east side of Cedar
Rapids, and not the west side.
We rejected that formula that said one side of town was
worthy; the other side of town wasn't worthy. Our mechanism
with the State is going to pay 100 percent of the west side
flood protection. So our ask of the Federal Government is just
the 65 percent for east side flood protection. But until there
are some changes in the cost-benefit ratio, we are going to be
compared with other communities around the Country that just
have higher property values.
Senator Ernst. Yes, absolutely. Quite well put, Mayor. I
want to thank you for the hard work that you have done for the
community of Cedar Rapids and for the State of Iowa. Thank you.
General Semonite, it is good to see you again. Thank you
for taking the time to sit down with me and go over these tough
issues.
I wrote to you last fall, asking about how human safety is
considered in the decision process to budget and fund flood
risk reduction projects. The Corps then sent me a letter back,
in December, stating that these decisions are determined on a
case-by-case basis. And then a list was provided to me of the
Fiscal Year 2017 projects that were funded for construction
because of the significant risks they pose to human safety.
Now, they also have low BCRs. They are very similar to what
we see in Cedar Rapids. And I noticed that four out of the five
projects were in California. Can you explain to me why the
lives and livelihoods of Californians are worth more than the
lives and livelihoods of Iowans, particularly since California
is a very vast State with large amounts of economic resources?
General Semonite. Senator, great question. I think I said,
when you were out, every single American, every single property
have all the same value. We have to be able to continue to take
care of all of the Country. And Cedar Rapids has done better
than almost anywhere else in figuring how to mitigate this
significant challenge.
You are very, very aware you have an authorized project.
The big question is the ability to be able to find funding to
be able to do it, and the mayor is exactly right, there are a
lot of concerns out there. We are worried. We made a
significant Federal investment when it came to the
authorization of that. We are continuing to figure out to do
every single thing we can to try to find how we can now secure
the right amount of money to be able to at least start that.
The challenge we have, and this goes back to, I think, why
we are all here today, is that the requirements grossly exceed
the amount of money in the Federal budget. Just the Federal
dams alone, $24 billion to be able to buy down the worst ones.
Now, we are getting funded to capacity and the Congress has
done a good job of taking care of us on the Federal ones, but
when it comes to all of these other areas for flood control,
the question is how can we try to hit all those requirements.
The best thing we can do is to continue to work with you to
figure out are there other parameters or other solutions that
we can somehow be able to figure out how to take care of the
mayor out there.
The benefit-cost ratio can't be the right answer, because
like you said, sir, we can't run this Country on an algorithm.
We have to think about the passion of the people and all the
work they have done out there. But right now we continue to try
to champion that project the best we can. We will continue to
be able to work with you. But I think at the end of the day,
when the Administration has to figure out how much can we
afford, elements like this are going to have to figure out are
there some of those that you can then take a look at that risk
and where can we afford to be able to buy that risk down.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that, General, and I do look
forward to working with you on a solution that will not only
benefit those that live in more urban areas or urban States,
but also those that are finding challenges in the rural areas.
This is a very important project not just for Cedar Rapids, but
for the well-being of the entire State of Iowa. So I will
continue to push for that. I am glad that we can work together.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing this
Committee together today to talk about these important issues.
I know that we struggle with some of those same issues in
Wyoming, in Iowa, in Nebraska, and I look forward to finding
that solution with you. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator Ernst.
I look forward to continuing working with you on this, as we
discussed in the meeting in your office, the critical need for
this additional work. So thank you for all your efforts. Thank
you.
Before I begin my questioning, I would like to demonstrate
the impact that ice jam flooding has had in communities in
Wyoming. This is the Northern Wyoming Daily News from Tuesday,
February 14th. You have seen this, Commissioner Wolf.
One hundred plus homes evacuated. Ice jamming along Big
Horn River causes second major flood in 3 years, with pictures
of the Wyoming National Guard placing sandbags in Wyoming. So
this is affecting different parts of the Country and I just
wanted to visit with you, if I could, Commissioner Wolf,
because last week many people from Big Horn County went to
Grable to celebrate the life and mourn the death of our fire
chief, Paul Murdoch. The gym at the high school was jammed.
People came in fire trucks from all around. He died after
fighting not a fire, but an ice jam on the Big Horn River in an
effort to prevent flooding in Grable. He left behind a wife. He
was 53. Left behind two sons. It was a real tragedy.
So can you talk about the other human consequences of the
flooding, in addition to the abandoned homes and the damage and
the property damage? Can you go a little bit beyond that?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Yes, that was a
tragic time that happened with his passing. A couple of folks
in our courthouse were family, related to him, and we extend
our condolences, too.
When we look at what happened out there on the ground, when
that flood inundated the homes and got close to the local
businesses and displaced over 100 homes, as you had mentioned,
those families were away from their homes for almost, I think,
four to five nights, and when you look at the toll there, they
don't know what they are going to come back to.
Law enforcement did a very good job between the Worland
Police Department and the Washington County Sheriff's
Department trying to get families in and out of their homes if
the ability was there for them to go in and at least get some
belongings to get by. I think many of them thought it was just
maybe an overnight deal, but upriver of this ice jam that had
already flooded we had several other jams that had not come
down yet, and with the normal flood stage there right at that
point where the bridges are in Worland runs at 10.5 feet. We
hit a high of 15 feet, and with other ice jams coming down, we
didn't want to take the chance of letting them in there and
cause injury or loss of life just from people being there.
Those big chunks of ice are just dangerous to be around even if
the water recedes.
Senator Barrasso. You know, the pictures that you showed
showing the growth of the island in the middle of the Big Horn
River are striking. I think people looked at that and said,
wow. The testimony states removal of the island could be a
simple and effective solution for ice jam flooding in the city
of Worland. As you point out, if the Big Horn River selected,
as a pilot project to demonstrate innovative solutions for ice
jams, I think we could solve this problem. In fact, it may be
the only way, given the cost and the bureaucratic red tape and
the permits that would be required.
So, given that, do you believe that the Corps should have
the good sense to step in to address situations like this,
where the safety impact on the lives and the property are so
great that, if a town can't afford to proceed on its own, that
they should step in?
Mr. Wolf. I do think so, Mr. Chairman, that they should
step in. I do look at it, though, at a State and local level
there, that we need to have some skin in the game and work with
the Corps in this project. There is firsthand knowledge that we
have that we have seen over the years that might be able to add
to some solutions to the problem that they may not see, not
being there on a regular basis. One of the things that we have
looked at short-term is removal of that island that is out
there, sandbar that has built up over time, and reinforce the
riverbank, and then also, along with that, short-term solutions
would be to put in place backflow prevention that goes back
into the city on the storm drains, because even though some of
the areas didn't get hit by the water overtopping banks, the
water flow backed up the storm drains and flooded around
buildings in some of the local areas. So that is one thing.
In the long-term, we would like to get some berms in place
to tie in around the north side of Worland.
So I think we can work together, and I talked with the
General earlier today and made some progress, I believe.
Senator Barrasso. That would be great.
General Semonite, can you comment on that? Do you have the
ability to help towns like Worland to remove that simple island
that causes so much damage each year? Or do you believe you
don't have the statutory flexibility?
General Semonite. Sir, thanks for the question. Senator, I
think, first of all, I want to thank you for what you did to be
able to get that pilot organized, the tender for night stem
actions were in work in the next 5 years. We have a lot of
expertise in cold regions. I am from a small town in Vermont.
The Connecticut River has ice jams all the time. I have seen
flooding in my own town, so I certainly know the complexity
that is out there.
I don't think we have a challenge with authorities, and it
goes back to what you said earlier, I think, sir, when it comes
to the 205 challenges, we want to be able to continue to reach
out to do whatever we need to do for this Nation, whatever the
Nation needs the Corps with expertise. Sir, the only reason
that we should not be able to do something is because of the
lack of funding. I mean, it should be the fact that we just
can't afford it, the Nation can't afford, and this is where the
best thing we could do is understand the requirement, come
forward to be able to articulate that in Congress, where in
fact we think there could be some use of that, and then if in
fact the Administration and the Congress feels that we should
step up, then that is obviously a budgetary decision. But I
don't think that our hands are tied, necessarily, right now
from an authority perspective, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. And in terms of authority, I want to
switch to something in the opening statement. I included that
language in the Water Resources Development Act the Committee
enacted last Congress, creating an Army Corps Pilot Program to
develop innovative cost-saving technology to address the threat
like this. In developing this technology, the programs would
involve consultation, of course, with the co-regions research,
engineering laboratory of the Corps. You talked about your
upbringing and your familiarity, so will you commit, then, to
work to implement this program in an expeditious manner to
develop the required technologies to help alleviate these sorts
of threats?
General Semonite. Sir, the language in WRDA was very, very
clear exactly what the scope of that program was. We already
have that under gear to figure out how would we go ahead and do
it. I think the only challenge would be is if at some point we
don't have the funding to be able to execute the follow-on of
some of those technologies. But I think it goes back to not
only what the Corps can do; how can we continue to learn not
only what other areas in America do, but this happens in other
places in the world. We have to get some innovation to figure
out how can we somehow use technology to be able to mitigate
some of this risk.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much for holding this hearing.
As to the general concerns we have on dam maintenance, in
Maryland we have 346 dams. I was surprised to learn that
number. Two are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps, and
we thank you very much for the attention that has been paid to
the two dams in Maryland that are under the Army Corps'
supervision, the Jennings Randolph Lake, which affects Maryland
and West Virginia, and in Cumberland, Maryland and Ridgeley,
West Virginia.
We also have a lot of other dams in our State that are
highly regulated along the Susquehanna. The Conowingo Dam is
one of the major sources of electricity in the east coast of
the United States.
But I want to go to the attention of the lesser known dams
that we have in our State that are no longer performing the
function for which they were constructed originally. We have
the Bloede Dam on the Patapsco in Patapsco State Park that I
was told was the first hydroelectric dam in the Country. That
might be right, may be wrong, but it is an old dam that no
longer serves its function and has really no purpose. But
because of the way dams are maintained and financed and owned,
there is no reserve for the removal of that dam.
So that dam now is still there. It is a public safety
hazard; we have had several drownings because it is on a State
Park and individuals like to swim, and they swim near the dam
and the currents there have caused people to lose their life.
It also adversely affects our environment and the water flow;
it affects farming operations in an adverse way. So I guess my
question is there any way that we can figure out how we can,
either moving forward, recognize that there is a life cycle for
dams and that there is a need to remove dams that no longer are
useful for their intended purpose? If you have suggestions on
that, I would appreciate it.
Lieutenant General, it looks like you have a thought.
General Semonite. Sir, just maybe an observation on how we
are doing it, Senator. Fifteen of the worst dams, the Federal
dams, equate to probably $12 billion of repair. So the question
is do we use taxpayers' money to fix all of those dams or have
some of those actually outlived their point?
So of the 15, 5 of them right now we are working with
Congress to divest those 5. Three of them are already basically
approved, and they are in Kentucky. They will come back out.
There is another one right now that Olmstead is actually
replacing, so this is actually on one of the rivers. I think
you have a great point. There are times that we have to take a
good look at and say is it really worth the return on
investment to fix a dam or, for all the reasons you stated,
especially when it comes to environmental, life safety, maybe
it is time to take some of those dams out. So this is where I
don't know the particular dam you are talking about; it is not
a Federal dam. But certainly on our side we are trying to do
the same thing, because the worst thing we can do is use very,
very limited taxpayers' dollars to fix a dam that doesn't
actually serve the intended purpose.
Senator Cardin. Is there any experiences in the State on
how you can decommission them?
Mr. Larson. Thanks, Senator. I ran the Dam Safety Program
in the State of Wisconsin. We had the authority to tell an
owner either you fix it up or take it out. There may be
instances, and this may be the case you are talking about,
where we could not find an owner. In that case, we ask our
State legislature to set up a fund to remove the dams. I think
the States need to step up and do that. They are not Federal
dams. These are non-Federal dams. And we did, we had a fund
where we removed those dams that were no longer serving a
purpose.
Mr. Laird. And, Senator, we have removed just a high
profile one in Monterey County. We have an agreement with
Interior and the State of Oregon to remove four dams on the
Klamath River. There is one in Ventura County that has silted
up to the point that, by 2020, it will have a zero percent
capacity and we will have what was once a 7,000-acre foot dam
completely with silt ponded.
And you nailed the problem. We raised the money from
private donors and different public funds to deal with these
dam removals because they were safety, it was fish, it was
outlived the usefulness. And some of the ratepayers had to
contribute, but in some of these cases they are on such a small
base and the cost for removing the dam is so big that we have
to leverage some other money.
Senator Cardin. And we have no responsible party, I
understand, that would pay to remove this dam. Therefore, we
have to look for either a public source or some way in which
there is a broader base to pay for removal of the dam. Your
experiences could be very helpful to other States, so one of
the things I guess I would encourage is that this subject be
best practices shared as to how you were able to do this,
because in my State we have been unable to take care of this
circumstance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand.
[Remarks made off microphone.]--New York State because we
have quite a lot of dams. New York is particularly vulnerable
because, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers,
we are actually eighth in the Nation when it comes to high
hazard potential dams. The average age of our dams are nearly
70 years old.
New York is also vulnerable to major storms and flooding
associated with storm surges along our coast. Hurricane Irene
and Tropical Storm Lee resulted in major flooding across New
York State; massive damage to homes and businesses and lives.
During Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, New York failure
of three low hazard and one intermediate hazard dams.
We are very fortunate that prior to those storms important
repairs were made in some instances, one particularly with the
Gilboa Dam in Schoharie County, absent which we may have seen
far more devastation in the Mohawk Valley and the city of
Schenectady.
Now, while New York State has a strong and longstanding dam
safety program in place, we do not know where or when the next
storm will occur, and whether it will be more intense than the
last. So I think we really can't have a serious conversation
about the safety of dams, levees, and other flood
infrastructure without also addressing the impacts of climate
change and extreme weather.
Sea level rise and storm surge threatens infrastructure all
across our coast. Increased amount of precipitation due to
hurricanes, nor'easters, or other extreme weather events
threatens our dams and levees as well.
So, first, does the Army Corps provide any guidance to
States to help them take the potential impacts of global
climate change into account when carrying out their dam safety
programs?
General Semonite. Senator, thanks for the question. Yes, we
certainly do provide a lot of capability. We have a lot of
regional expertise. I said earlier we have 5,000 dam safety
experts in the Corps. So even in the New York district you have
several districts that work in the State of New York. All of
those people are there able to provide that capability.
We have also found that we have to be able to localize some
of the real, real high end experts in a regional center, so we
have built some regional centers. Mr. Helpin, sitting right
behind me, he runs our national dam safety center, so not only
are we able to come and help in a State capacity, but whatever
we can do on any of our technical competence or be able to show
lessons learned, we are certainly willing to do that. We are
Mosul, Iraq, fixing that dam in Iraq right now because we are
that level.
So the challenge is going to be what is the level of
support that we can give and how do we work that through on a
reimbursable basis, because that is how the Corps works, but we
are more than willing to partner if there are any specific
issues you have in New York that I can help with.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, what steps do you actually take
to focus on resiliency? What can you take to make sure a dam is
more resilient to handle extreme weather?
General Semonite. So I think there is the physical piece,
first of all. Some of the things that we have learned on our
dams, on our structures: how do we go back in and worry about
vegetation; how do we worry about making sure that the right
inspections are done; the technical competency. I think the
softer side is another big area, though. What are we doing and
how do you mitigate that? Things like in our Federal dams,
ma'am, we have these water control manuals, so we know how much
water do we want to keep in the dam; where do we see the storm
coming; how do we bring that back down. Obviously, that is a
balance with drought.
So the more that we can do this through technical
affiliations or relationships and we can give some advice, I
think that is one of the things that we can certainly offer;
not just necessarily a structural fix, but how do we continue
to work this through a risk-informed decisionmaking process to
be able to make sure the whole entity is engaged.
Senator Gillibrand. And when you are assessing if something
is a high hazard dam or not, are future climate change impacts
taken into consideration in making that judgment? I will just
give you an example. In New York we have 7,000 dams, and 403 of
them are classified as high hazard dam structures. Arguably,
would more be classified as high hazard if you were also taking
into account future climate change impacts?
General Semonite. Senator, we look at climate change, sea
level rise with every single thing we do. When we are going to
build a new structure, we obviously put that into the design.
I think the other thing that is really most important is
not so much the fact of where the water is going to be, but how
that water comes. Some of the other testimoneys today talked
about flashes. In California right now we are very concerned
about this pineapple express type scenario where you could have
a lot of microbursts happen all at once. So it is not just the
fact of where the water is, but how is that water going to
come. And if it is going to come so fast that the system can't
pass that water in a manner, then that is when we really have
the challenges out there.
Senator Gillibrand. And so you are you analyzing those sets
of facts when judging which dams are critical?
General Semonite. Yes, Senator, exactly right.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much.
Everyone has had one round of questions. I didn't have any
other.
Senator Harris, anything else?
Well, I want to thank all of our guests for being here. I
think this was very, very helpful for all of us. Some of you
traveled long distances. I appreciate all of the witnesses for
being here.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to place into the
record additional testimony we received from the Association of
State Dam Safety Officials and the Upper Mississippi, Illinois,
and Missouri River Association and the Flood Plain Alliance for
Insurance Reform. So, if there is no objection, those will be
included in the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I do also want to note that this record
will stay open for the next 2 weeks, and there may be other
members of the Committee, because of the votes, who had to
leave who may submit written questions, and we would hope that
you could get back to us quickly with those.
But, otherwise, thank you to each and every one of you for
being here. I am very grateful for your time.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]