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

        WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTS: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND
                             ASSESSING FUTURE NEEDS

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

                                    (116-26)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                 JULY 10, 2019
                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation
                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    40-659 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2020

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair

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

                                      (ii)

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                     GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair

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

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................  viii

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water
      Resources and Environment:

        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
      Resources and Environment:

        Opening statement............................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, prepared statement.............................   117

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel 1

    Hon. R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
      Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):

        Oral statement...............................................     8
    Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for
      Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

        Oral statement...............................................    10
        Prepared joint statement of Hon. James and Major General
          Spellmon...................................................    12

                                    Panel 2

    Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows Point, Maryland,
      Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways Council, Inc.:

        Oral statement...............................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Chad Berginnis, C.F.M., Executive Director, Association of State
      Floodplain Managers, Inc.:

        Oral statement...............................................    52
        Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage District
      Association:

        Oral statement...............................................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water Conservation,
      National Audubon Society:

        Oral statement...............................................    81
        Prepared statement...........................................    82
    Derek Brockbank, Executive Director, American Shore and Beach
      Preservation Association:

        Oral statement...............................................    91
        Prepared statement...........................................    93
    F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D., Director, Center for Western Weather and
      Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University
      of California San Diego:

        Oral statement...............................................    97
        Prepared statement...........................................    99

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Letter of July 9, 2019, from Doug Wheeler, President & CEO,
      Florida Ports Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace
      F. Napolitano..................................................   117
    Letter of July 10, 2019, from Nicole Vasilaros, Senior Vice
      President of Government Relations and Legal Affairs, National
      Marine Manufacturers Association, Submitted for the Record by
      Hon. Grace F. Napolitano.......................................   119
    Article, ``Breached Levee Sucks in Barges in Alexander County,
      Highlighting Need for Repairs, Officials Say,'' by Gabriel
      Neeley-Streit, The Southern, July 3, 2019, Submitted for the
      Record by Hon. Mike Bost.......................................   120
    Letter of February 14, 2019, from David P. Ross, Assistant
      Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection
      Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast.........   122
    Press Release of May 22, 2019, Issued by the Environmental
      Protection Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J.
      Mast...........................................................   124
    Letter of May 1, 2019, from Robert Redfield, M.D., Director,
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Administrator,
      Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Submitted for
      the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast...............................   124
    Letter of April 16, 2019, from David D. Whiting, Deputy Director,
      Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida
      Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for the
      Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast...................................   126
    Letter of November 9, 2018, from David D. Whiting, Deputy
      Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration,
      Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for
      the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast...............................   127
    Validation Study--Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, June 2019,
      Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer..................   128
    Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report--Carolina Beach, North
      Carolina, June 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David
      Rouzer.........................................................   129

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Hon. R.D. James,
      Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the
      Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)..................   131
    Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
      Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................   131
    Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
      Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................   133
    Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
      Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................   134
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Major General Scott A.
      Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
      Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................   134
    Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Major General Scott A.
      Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
      Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................   135
    Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Major General Scott
      A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
      Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................   137
    Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Major General Scott A.
      Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
      Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................   137
    Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Major General Scott A.
      Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
      Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................   138
    Questions from Hon. Thomas Massie to Rob Innis, Plant Manager,
      Sparrows Point, Maryland, Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways
      Council, Inc...................................................   140
    Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Derek Brockbank, Executive
      Director, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association....   141
    Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to F. Martin Ralph,
      Ph.D., Director, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes,
      Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
      San Diego......................................................   143
    Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D.,
      Director, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes,
      Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
      San Diego......................................................   145

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  July 1, 2019

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment
        FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment
        RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``Water Resources
    Development Acts: Status of Implementation and Assessing Future
    Needs''

                                    PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will
    meet on Wednesday, July 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2167,
    Rayburn House Office Building, to receive testimony related to
    the development and implementation of water resources
    development acts (WRDA)--which are principal legislative
    vehicles to authorize studies, projects, and policies carried
    out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Civil Works (Corps).
    The purpose of this hearing is to provide Members with an
    opportunity to review the Corps' implementation of the most
    recent congressionally-authorized WRDAs, enacted in 2014, 2016,
    and 2018. This hearing will also begin to identify future needs
    to inform the development of WRDA 2020, which the Committee
    expects to develop and approve next year.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Corps is the federal government's largest water
    resources development and management agency and is comprised of
    38 district offices within eight divisions. The Corps operates
    more than 700 dams; has constructed 14,500 miles of levees; and
    maintains more than 1,000 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland
    harbors, as well as 12,000 miles of inland waterways.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45185#fn1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Navigation was the earliest Civil Works mission, when
    Congress authorized the Corps to improve safety on the Ohio and
    Mississippi Rivers in 1824. Since then, the Corps' primary
    missions have evolved and expanded to include flood damage
    reduction along rivers, lakes, and the coastlines, and projects
    to restore and protect the environment. Along with these
    missions, the Corps is the largest generator of hydropower in
    the nation, provides water storage opportunities to cities and
    industry, regulates development in navigable waters, assists in
    national emergencies, and manages a recreation program. To
    date, the Corps manages nearly 1,500 water resources projects.
        The standard authorization process for a Corps project
    requires two separate congressional authorizations--one for
    studying feasibility and a subsequent one for construction.
    Congress traditionally considers Corps projects and policy
    authorizations biennially through the enactment of a WRDA bill.
    Congress has enacted three consecutive WRDA bills since 2014.

                          STATUS OF WRDA IMPLEMENATION

        The Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA 2018) was
    signed into law as Title I of the America's Water
    Infrastructure Act (P.L. 115-270) by President Trump on October
    23, 2018. WRDA 2018 authorized 14 Chief's Reports, authorized
    four new Post Authorization Change Reports, 10 new feasibility
    studies, and requested that the Corps expedite completion of 32
    existing feasibility studies. As part of implementing WRDA
    2018, the Corps must also consider whether or not to issue new
    guidance for specific programs to aid in the execution of the
    provision. The Corps held a 60-day public comment period for
    the development of guidance, which closed on February 12, 2019.
    Since enactment of WRDA 2018, the Corps has issued 36
    implementation guidance documents \2\. Similarly, there are two
    provisions of the WRDA 2014 (sections 1001--vertical
    integration and acceleration of studies and 1043b--pilot
    project for non-federal implementation of projects) and three
    provisions (sections 1139--dam safety, 1162--fish and wildlife
    mitigation, 1163--wetlands mitigation) of the WRDA 2016 where
    the Corps issued revised guidance this year as a result of
    additional guidance in WRDA 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-
    Planning/Legislative-Links/wrda_2018/wrda2018_impguide.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              DEFINING FUTURE NEEDS AND SECTION 7001 ANNUAL REPORT

        The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
    (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121) established a mechanism for Corps
    projects and studies to be communicated to Congress for
    potential authorization. Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 requires
    the Secretary of the Army to annually publish a notice in the
    Federal Register requesting proposals from non-federal
    interests for new project authorizations, new feasibility
    studies, and modifications to existing Corps projects. Further,
    it requires the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress and
    make publicly available a ``Report to Congress on Future Water
    Resources Development'' (Annual Report) of those activities
    that are related to the missions of the Corps and require
    specific authorization by law.
        Additionally, Section 7001 contains a provision that
    requires the Corps to submit to Congress an appendix containing
    descriptions of those projects requested by non-federal
    interests that were not included in the Annual Report.
    Submission of the Annual Report (and the appendix) allows
    Congress to review all requests submitted by non-federal
    interests to the Corps.
        Since WRRDA 2014, the Annual Report has been used as a
    guide from which Congress considers which studies, projects,
    and modifications will receive authorization in future WRDA
    legislation. This process was required in part, because of a
    Congressional ban on earmarks in 2011. In June 2019, the Corps
    submitted their Annual Report \3\ for Congressional
    consideration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/
    p16021coll5/id/35439.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Corps is currently soliciting proposals \4\ for
    inclusion in the 2020 Report to Congress. The deadline for
    proposals is August 27, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/29/2019-
    08583/proposals-by-non-federal-interests-for-feasibility-studies-and-
    for-modifications-to-an-authorized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   CONCLUSION

        As the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure moves
    forward in developing the next WRDA legislation, this hearing
    is intended to provide Members with an opportunity to review
    implementation of past WRDAs and begin consideration of
    potential projects and policy initiatives that benefit the
    Nation.

                                   WITNESSES

    PANEL 1

          The Honorable Rickey Dale ``R.D.'' James,
    Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of the Army-Civil Works
          Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy
    Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, United
    States Army Corps of Engineers

    PANEL 2

          Mr. Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows Point,
    LafargeHolcim, on behalf of the of Waterways Council Inc.
          Mr. Chad Berginnis, Executive Director,
    Association of State Floodplain Managers
          Mr. Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and
    Drainage District Association
          Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water
    Conservation, The National Audubon Society
          Mr. Derek Brockbank, Executive Director, American
    Shore and Beach Preservation Association
          Mr. F. Martin ``Marty'' Ralph, Ph.D., Director,
    Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps
    Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego

        WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTS: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND
                             ASSESSING FUTURE NEEDS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Grace F.
    Napolitano (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Napolitano, DeFazio, Mucarsel-
    Powell, Johnson of Texas, Garamendi, Lowenthal, Carbajal,
    Espaillat, Finkenauer, Delgado, Pappas, Craig, Rouda,
    Malinowski; Westerman, Graves of Missouri, Webster, Massie,
    Woodall, Babin, Graves of Louisiana, Rouzer, Bost, Weber, Mast,
    Palmer.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order, and today's hearing is an opportunity to review the
    Corps implementation of the most recently passed
    congressionally authorized WRDA. Enacted 2014, in 2016, and
    2018. This hearing will also begin to identify future needs to
    inform the development for a new WRDA 2020.
        Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that committee
    members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the
    subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The Army Corps of Engineers is, simply put, the Nation's
    premier water resources expert for our Nation. Congress has
    vested significant responsibility in the Corps to carry out
    vital navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration
    projects for the benefit of our communities, and for our
    Nation. Each of these projects has been thoroughly studied by
    the Corps and authorized by Congress through biennial Water
    Resources Development Acts.
        This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has traditionally
    worked to move a Water Resources Development Act every 2 years,
    and has successfully enacted three consecutive Water Resources
    Development Acts since 2014. Through these WRDAs, this
    committee seeks to address local, regional, and national needs
    through authorization of new Corps projects, studies, and
    policies that benefit every corner of our Nation.
        The Corps implementation of Water Resources Development
    Acts, particularly WRDA 2018, is very important for us to
    understand. We want to know that the Corps implements the law
    as Congress intended and ensure that the Corps continues to
    remain responsive to national, regional, and local priorities,
    and to a changing climate, and has the funding to do so.
        I am specifically interested in WRDA provisions that
    involve the National Dam Safety Program, nature-based
    infrastructure initiatives, using data to enhance operations at
    our reservoirs, and the Corps assessment of their authorized
    project backlog. For my district in California, I am very
    keenly interested in ensuring that this vital dam safety work
    at Whittier Narrows is completed expeditiously.
        After more than 12, 14 years, something like that, as well
    as ensuring the Corps has the tools and funding it needs to
    ensure a reliable source of water for the drought-prone areas
    in the West. Staying on the 2-year schedule for enacting the
    next new WRDA is critical to water infrastructure to the
    Nation, and today's hearing starts the process for the
    development of a 2020 WRDA, but Congress is only half the
    equation. We must have a partner in the Corps and this
    administration in requesting funding for the congressionally
    authorized projects and studies. When the administration
    includes the words, ``No New Start'' in a budget request, that
    means, ``No new infrastructure.''
        Secretary James, General Spellmon, thank you for being here
    today. I would like to thank very much all of the South Pacific
    region. I thank you and very much for their work and
    partnership through the years, and I would like to welcome our
    stakeholder panel for their participation in today's hearing.
        I look forward to working with all of you in the
    development of the next WRDA 2020 and your testimony.
        [Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
    Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
                        Water Resources and Environment
        The Army Corps of Engineers is--simply put--the nation's premier
    water resources expert for our Nation.
        Congress has vested significant responsibility in the Corps to
    carry out vital navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration
    projects for the benefit of our communities and our nation. Each of
    these projects has been thoroughly studied by the Corps and authorized
    by Congress through biennial water resources development acts.
        This Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has traditionally worked to
    move a water resources development act every two years, and has
    successfully enacted three consecutive Water Resources Development Acts
    since 2014. Through these WRDAs, this Committee seeks to address local,
    regional, and national needs through authorization of new Corps
    projects, studies, and policies that benefit every corner of the
    nation.
        The Corps implementation of the Water Resources Development Acts,
    particularly WRDA 2018, is important for us to understand. We want to
    know that the Corps implements the law as Congress intended, and ensure
    that the Corps remains responsive to national, regional, and local
    priorities and to a changing climate.
        I am specifically interested in WRDA provisions that involve the
    National Dam Safety Program, nature-based infrastructure initiatives,
    using data to enhance operations at our reservoirs, and the Corps'
    assessment of their authorized project backlog.
        For my district, I am very interested in ensuring that vital dam
    safety work at Whittier Narrows Dam is completed expeditiously, as well
    as ensuring the Corps' has the tools and funding it needs to ensure a
    reliable source of water for the drought prone areas in the west.
        Staying on a two-year schedule for enacting a new WRDA is critical
    to water infrastructure to the nation, and today's hearing starts the
    process for the development of a 2020 WRDA.
        But Congress is only half of the equation. We must have a partner
    in the Corps and this administration in requesting funding for
    Congressionally-authorized projects and studies. When the
    administration includes the words ``NO NEW START'' in a budget request,
    what that means is a NO to infrastructure.
        Secretary James and General Spellmon, thank you for being here
    today. I would also like to thank the South Pacific Region and the L.A.
    District of the Corps for their work and partnership throughout the
    years. I would also like to welcome our stakeholder panel for their
    participation in today's hearing.
        I look forward to working with you all in the development of a 2020
    WRDA, and in your testimony today.

        Mrs. Napolitano. At this time, I am pleased to yield to my
    colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
    Westerman, for any thoughts he may have.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, and in a
    bipartisan manner, I would associate myself with your comments.
    Very, very good remarks there. Thank you for holding this
    important hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being here
    today to discuss the important work that the Corps of Engineers
    does.
        I am proud to be able to work on this committee that has
    been able to pass three major transformational WRDA laws in the
    last three Congresses that are there to improve our Nation's
    water resources infrastructure. With this tremendous
    accomplishment, I want to urge the Corps to expeditiously
    implement some of the great reforms from these three laws.
        As we look forward to future water resources legislation,
    one issue that cannot be overlooked is the flooding that has
    occurred across the Nation. Out of all, the Arkansas River back
    in my home State in my district was swollen to historic levels,
    flooding homes, breaching levees, and devastating farmland.
    Arkansas is by no means alone in these experiences. Our
    neighbors in Oklahoma, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana,
    Kansas, Iowa, and beyond have all been affected by heavy rains
    this year.
        Unprecedented floodings such as this should serve as a
    catalyst for us to reexamine infrastructure to ensure it is
    updated and capable of protecting life and property. These
    disasters beg an important question: What can Congress do to
    prevent future flooding, or more importantly, how can we
    improve infrastructure within our States to reduce the risk of
    dam and levee breaches?
        In Arkansas alone, we have seen an estimated $23 million
    per day in economic loss along the Arkansas River as barges and
    boats can no longer navigate our inland waterways. Much of this
    waterborne commerce is dependent on infrastructure that was
    initially constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and is quickly
    approaching the end of its shelf life.
        So, as the flooded waters recede across the Nation, it is
    important for this committee to continue its bipartisan
    commitment to work and pass critical water resources
    legislation. We can't afford another year of flooded homes and
    washed out farmlands. This is a sight that none of us want to
    see and the American people deserve better than this.
        I look forward to hearing about the Corps implementation of
    the recent WRDAs and hearing constructive ideas from our
    witnesses across both panels and addressing our future water
    resources infrastructure needs.
        [Mr. Westerman's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
     Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
                       on Water Resources and Environment
        Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano for holding this important hearing,
    and thank you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
    important work of the Army Corps of Engineers.
        I'm proud to be able to work on this Committee that has been able
    to pass three major, transformational WRDA laws in the last three
    Congresses to improve our Nation's water resources infrastructure. With
    this tremendous accomplishment, I want to urge the Corps to
    expeditiously implement some of the great reforms from these three
    laws.
        As we look forward to future water resources legislation, one issue
    that cannot be overlooked is the flooding that has occurred across the
    Nation.
        While the Arkansas River was swollen to historic levels, flooding
    homes, breaching levees, and devastating farmland, Arkansas is by no
    means alone in these experiences. Our neighbors in Oklahoma,
    Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and beyond have all been affected
    by heavy rains this year. Unprecedented flooding such as this should
    serve as a catalyst for us to re-examine infrastructure, to ensure it
    is updated and capable of protecting life and property.
        These disasters beg an important question: what can Congress do to
    prevent future flooding? Or more importantly, how can we improve
    infrastructure within our states to reduce the risk of dam and levee
    breaches?
        In Arkansas alone, we've seen an estimated $23 million in daily
    economic loss along the Arkansas River as barges and boats can no
    longer navigate our inland waterways. Much of this waterborne commerce
    is dependent on infrastructure that was initially constructed in the
    1960s and 1970s, and is quickly approaching the end of its shelf life.
        So as the flood waters recede across the Nation, it is important
    for this Committee to continue its bipartisan commitment to work and
    pass critical water resources legislation. We can't afford another year
    of flooded homes and washed out farmlands. The American people deserve
    better than this.
        I look forward to hearing about the Corps' implementation of the
    recent WRDAs, and hearing constructive ideas from our witnesses across
    both panels on addressing our future water resources infrastructure
    needs.

        Mr. Westerman. I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman, for your
    statement. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio, the chairman of the
    full committee.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady and thank her for
    holding this hearing to kick off the 2020 Water Resources
    Development Act authorization. The former chairman, Bill
    Shuster, got us back on track with doing an authorization every
    2 years, and I fully intend to continue in that tradition.
        The Corps functions are so critical to many parts of the
    Nation, whether we are talking about navigation or we are
    talking about flood control or we are talking about ecosystem
    restoration, other missions, anticipation of severe climate
    events with changes in the climate. The Corps operates 2,200
    levees, 700 dams, largest producer of clean, renewable
    hydropower in the United States of America. Many of its
    functions are critical and benefit us every day.
        WRDA provides direction to the Corps, and we will, as I
    said, do a 2020 bill, but we do want to look back at the past
    bills and see whether these bills and the reforms and programs
    that they proposed have been implemented as intended, and it is
    also critical, and I am not going to press the Secretary on
    this.
        We had a former colleague who sat in that role a number of
    years ago, and I asked him. I said, ``Is this budget adequate
    to do what the Corps needs to do?'' And he said, ``No, it
    isn't.'' And the next Monday, he decided he wanted to leave his
    job for family purposes. So, I am not going to put you on that
    spot, but as much as possible, you have got to advocate for and
    tell us your needs so that we can anticipate them.
        I also intend to fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund for its intended lawful purpose, stop diverting funds to
    other parts of the Government, and recapture the funds that
    have been essentially sequestered somewhere in the bowels of
    the Treasury on a computer or somewhere. So, that bill passed
    out of committee.
        I am pushing my leadership to move that bill through the
    House on a daily basis. We have less than 40 percent
    utilization to authorized depths at the 50 largest harbors in
    America. Other places in my district and others, you know,
    jetties are crumbling and the faster and the more they fail,
    the more they cost to repair, and we have got to get at these
    tasks. We have got to unlock those funds and get the job done.
        So, I welcome the Secretary and the General here today, and
    I mean no disrespect, but I have to go to deal with some
    aviation issues, but there will be, I am certain, much interest
    on the committee, and we look forward to your testimony. Thank
    you for being here, and thanks to the other witnesses also.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
         Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        For nearly 200 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has
    played a central role in addressing the Nation's water resources needs
    for navigation, flood protection, ecosystem restoration, and other
    missions. The Corps is crucial in managing our Nation's infrastructure,
    operating nearly 2,200 levee systems and 700 dams across the US, and is
    the largest producer of hydropower in the country.
        Yet, the first step in any Corps project or activity comes through
    authorization in a water resources development act (or WRDA). Regular
    enactment of WRDAs provides this Committee with the opportunity to
    oversee the Corps' implementation of projects and to ensure that the
    Corps remains responsive to national, regional, and local priorities,
    as well as a to a changing climate. It is for this reason that the
    Committee intends to develop and approve a WRDA 2020 bill next year.
        Today, we will also examine whether the Corps is implementing prior
    Water Resources Development Acts as Congress intended. This means
    issuing implementation guidance in a timely manner and including in
    their budget requests and work plans necessary funding of authorized
    Corps projects.
        I want to reiterate the need for the administration to request
    funding for authorized projects. Not funding authorized projects leaves
    the Corps with only two options--slow projects down or carry out fewer
    projects. Both options are unacceptable. Shortchanging the Corps
    impacts their ability to carry out its missions, implement
    congressional directives, and operate in a timely fashion.
        You can be sure I will continue to work to enact the next WRDA and
    to build on the successes of the last two Congresses in the full
    utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. My bill was passed
    out of Committee by voice vote last month and awaits consideration by
    the Full House. H.R. 2440 honors our long-term commitment to U.S.
    shippers and taxpayers by using the Trust Fund proceeds for their
    intended purposes. Through this legislation, approximately $34 billion
    in harbor maintenance taxes will be available over the next decade to
    maintain our harbors and ports.
        Rising tides raise all ships--and enactment of this legislation
    will pave the way for further adjustments in WRDA to ensure all our
    nation's ports--large and small--are maintained to their appropriate
    widths and depths and that the unique needs of all our harbors,
    including our largest ports, can be addressed.
        Secretary James and General Spellmon, thank you for being here
    today. I look forward to working with you to provide much needed
    assistance to our communities in maintaining our Nation's ports,
    harbors, and environment.
        Let's implement WRDA 2018, fund these important projects and
    studies, and move forward to WRDA 2020.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, and now, I yield
    to the ranking member for the full committee, Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
    Member Westerman for holding this obviously very important
    hearing. In the past, as it has been pointed out already, the
    past three Congresses, this committee has passed three WRDA
    bills, and I look forward to doing that again in another one in
    the law in 2020.
        As we look at the future needs of our country and one of
    the most relevant issues continues to be the extensive flooding
    that we are seeing on the Mississippi River and the Missouri
    River Basins. In 2011, we thought that we had learned our
    lesson from a historic Missouri River flooding incident, but
    once again, here we are 8 years later, and we find ourselves in
    even worse shape. While we don't know what the full cost of
    this flooding season is going to be, we anticipate that it is
    probably going to be several billion dollars and the costs of
    flood damage are extensive and includes agricultural losses,
    business interruption, infrastructure damage, and individual
    and public assistance.
        The first levee breaches in my district occurred in mid-
    March and some ground has been underwater ever since then,
    flooded for almost 4 months. When farmland is flooded for that
    long, it can be completely covered in sand, in sediment, and
    what that does is render it unusable for many years. In my
    district, I have 81 levee systems and almost 3,000 miles of
    levees protecting highly productive farmland and thousands of
    residents and businesses along the Missouri River, and the
    Mississippi River for that matter.
        Virtually every levee from Iowa to Kansas City overtopped
    our breach from the initial March event, and again in May and
    June with those flooding events. Almost every levee downstream
    of Kansas City it overtopped, they overtopped and breached, and
    when levees breach and residents have a very short period of
    time to collect what belongings they can and get to higher
    ground, thousands of acres of farmland become utterly
    devastated and may never see a crop again. Road closures cost
    businesses, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants,
    retailers, you name it, other businesses, it costs them a lot
    of income and ultimately, it costs local jurisdictions a lot of
    revenue. States, counties, cities, and a lot of other local
    entities are going to continue to have to spend money that they
    simply don't have for critical infrastructure repair and
    municipal services.
        The most important impacts of the flood are the impacts on
    people. I have neighbors, friends, and family that have all
    been devastated by this flooding event and the displacement and
    disruption of people's lives is more than just dollars and
    cents. It is a disruption of their peace of mind, their feeling
    of safety, and the prospect of having to pick up the pieces and
    try to rebuild their lives and their communities.
        Missourians are tough and we are going to get through this
    together, but we can't lose perspective on what was really lost
    here as we strive for better outcomes from the public policy
    that we are going to debate here in Congress. It is very
    important that we hear from our witnesses today about the
    devastation that this flood has caused, but it is just as
    important to hear what we think the future needs to be when it
    comes to managing the upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers,
    and I believe personally that we are asking the Corps of
    Engineers to balance too many priorities and that when life,
    property, and safety are at stake that flood control has to be
    the number one priority.
        From Gavins Point Dam to the mouth of the Missouri River,
    we are slated to spend only $13 million on annual levee
    maintenance while at the same time, we are slated to spend
    $30.7 million on wildlife reclamation and habitat creation in
    that same stretch of river. The fact of the matter is there has
    to be some adjustments made on the consideration of people's
    lives and their property.
        And with that, Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing
    from the witnesses today, and I yield back.
        [Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        In the past three Congresses, this Committee has passed three Water
    Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), and I look forward to again working
    together to enact another one into law in 2020.
        As we look at the future water needs of the country, one of the
    most relevant issues continues to be the extensive flooding on the
    Upper Mississippi and Missouri River Basins. Back in 2011, we thought
    we had learned our lesson after the historic Missouri River flooding,
    but once again, eight years later, we find ourselves in even worse
    shape.
        While we don't know what the full cost of this flooding season will
    be, we anticipate that it is probably going to be several billion
    dollars. The costs of flood damage are extensive and include
    agriculture losses, business interruption, infrastructure damage, and
    individual and public assistance.
        The first levee breaches in my district occurred in mid-March, and
    some ground has been underwater ever since then--flooded for almost
    four months. When farmland is flooded for that long, it can be
    completely covered in sand and sediment, rendering it unusable for
    years.
        My district has about 81 levee systems and 2,552 miles of levees
    protecting highly productive farmland and thousands of residents and
    businesses along the Missouri River alone. Virtually every levee from
    Iowa to Kansas City overtopped or breached from the initial March
    event. And again in the May and June flooding events, almost every
    levee downstream of Kansas City overtopped or breached.
        When levees breach, residents often only have a few hours to
    collect what belongings they can to get out of danger; thousands of
    acres of farmland become utterly devastated and may never see a crop
    again; road closures cost gas stations, restaurants, retailers, and
    other businesses income; and ultimately, it costs local jurisdictions a
    lot of revenue. States, counties, cities, and a lot of other local
    entities are going to continue to have to spend money they simply don't
    have for critical infrastructure repairs and municipal services.
        But the most important impacts of floods are the impacts on people.
    These are my neighbors, friends, and family. The displacement and
    disruption of people's lives is more than just dollars and cents. It's
    a disruption of their peace of mind, their feeling of safety, and the
    prospect of having to pick up the pieces and trying to rebuild their
    lives and their community.
        Missourians are tough. And we will get through this together. But
    we cannot lose perspective of what was really lost here as we strive
    for better outcomes from the public policy that we debate in Congress.
        It is very important that we hear from our witnesses today about
    the devastation this flood has caused. But it is just as important to
    hear what we think the future needs to be when it comes to managing the
    Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
        I believe, personally, that we are asking the Corps of Engineers to
    balance too many priorities--and that when life, property, and safety
    are at stake, flood control must always be priority number one. From
    Gavins Point Dam to the mouth of the Missouri River, we are slated to
    spend only $13 million on annual levee maintenance, while we are slated
    to spend $30.7 million on wildlife reclamation and habitat creation in
    that same stretch of river. The fact of the matter is there must be
    some adjustments made for the consideration of people's lives and
    property.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves. I now ask unanimous
    consent that the letters from the Florida Ports Council and the
    National Marine Manufacturers Association be included in the
    record in support of WRDA 2020.
        [Florida Ports Council and National Marine Manufacturers
    Association's letters are on pages 117-120.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. Now, we will proceed to hear from the
    witnesses, who will testify, and thank all of you for being
    here, both of you.
        For panel 1, we have the Honorable R.D. James, Assistant
    Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, and we welcome you. Hello.
        Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General
    for Civil and Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of
    Engineers. Welcome to both of you.
        Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
    into the record, and all witnesses are asked to limit their
    oral remarks to 5 minutes, and Secretary James, you may
    proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. R.D. JAMES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
    FOR CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
      (CIVIL WORKS); AND MAJOR GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, DEPUTY
      COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S.
                        ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        Mr. James. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
    Westerman, and all distinguished members of this committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
        I have been the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
    Works for 15 months and my goals today are the same as they
    were when I started: focus on outcomes, expedite the process,
    and move dirt, making the best use of all available funds.
    Since last year, I have had the pleasure to meet with many of
    you to discuss your views on the Army Civil Works program. Your
    input is appreciated, and I remain committed to working with
    each of you.
        The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $4.8 billion for the
    Corps, focusing on investments that will yield high economic
    and environmental returns or address a significant risk to
    public safety. This budget relies on a foundation of strong
    relationships between the Corps and local communities. It
    allows us to work together to help manage, develop, restore,
    and protect their water resources and infrastructure.
        The budget focuses on the three main mission areas of the
    Corps of Engineers: flood control, commercial navigation, and
    aquatic ecosystem restoration. The fiscal year 2020 budget
    supports a Corps program that has a diverse set of tools and
    approaches to working with local communities, whether this
    means funding projects with our cost-sharing partners,
    providing planning assistance and technical expertise, or
    participating in the national and international conversations
    on how to best address our future water resource challenges.
        The budget helps improve our efforts on resiliency and
    sustainability. The budget also funds two new, innovative
    programs in the construction account. One of them is the 1043
    program, and it is budgeted for $150 million, and that's where
    the Corps could transfer appropriated funds to a sponsor who
    desired to construct a project on their own.
        There is another one, the Innovative Funding Partnerships
    program, also funded at $150 million to be used in conjunction
    with funds voluntarily provided by non-Federal interests in
    excess of the non-Federal cost-share to accelerate completion
    of construction of specifically authorized projects.
        In addition, the budget proposed to extend the
    authorization for section 1043 of WRRDA 2014 as amended, which
    under current law expired on June 10th of this year.
        Since the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2018, the Chief of Engineers has issued a report with
    recommendations on 15 proposed water resource projects. I
    provided a detailed list of all of those projects in my
    official statement that I have submitted to this committee.
        Since receiving my appointment to ASA(CW), I focused on how
    the Corps executes all available funds. This involves
    identifying needed investments and ensuring that we complete
    execution in a more cost-effective and efficient way. This
    approach will ensure a better return on the taxpayer's
    investment and better the lives of Americans.
        Under my oversight and direction, and with the help of
    Lieutenant General Semonite and his team, such as General
    Spellmon, the Corps is committed to improving the performance
    of the Civil Works program. The Corps also is using its
    engineering expertise and relationships with project partners
    and stakeholders to develop new approaches to address some of
    the most pressing water resources challenges facing our Nation.
        And I would like to say there that I feel like the Corps
    got away from working with their partners. I am talking about
    the local people on the ground that the district engineers work
    with regularly, and we are trying to get back to that. We are
    trying to invite our partners to meetings, we are trying to
    make them a part of the process and the decisions that we make
    as Corps of Engineers, and I feel that is very important.
        Improving performance and timely delivery of quality
    products continue to be one of my highest priorities. To that
    end, I have completed the guidance for all provisions of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2018 and much to my
    distress, I discovered that when I took this office in February
    of 2018, there was guidance outstanding due to this committee
    from 2014 and 2016.
        I pledged to myself that after the WRDA 2018 was passed, we
    would not let that happen. I instructed my team to have all
    guidance out by April the 15th, and we did that with the
    exception of two, but I am proud to tell you today that all of
    our guidance has been submitted to the committee.
        I am committed to ensuring that the United States Army
    Corps of Engineers continues to do what it does better than any
    other organization in the world, identify the best ways to
    manage, design, construct, restore, and protect water resources
    and its infrastructure. My goal is to achieve the highest
    economic, environmental, and public safety return for the
    Nation, which will benefit all our citizens.
        Thank you for inviting me here today, and I look forward to
    taking any of your questions.
        [Hon. James' and Major General Spellmon's prepared joint
    statement follows Major General Spellmon's oral remarks.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Major General Spellmon, you are recognized.
        General Spellmon. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and
    members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    speak with you today about the implementation of recent Water
    Resources Development Acts, execution of the Corps Civil Works
    program, and our ongoing flood fights across the Nation. Again,
    my name is Major General Scott Spellmon. I'm the Corps Deputy
    Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations.
        I would like to first acknowledge the widespread
    devastation and serious impacts this year's flooding is
    creating for many people across the country. The Assistant
    Secretary and I have witnessed these impacts first-hand during
    our many visits to the field. Throughout our Corps personnel
    have been working tirelessly to help mitigate the effects of
    these events by providing assistance to States and local
    communities.
        This year's flood season continues to challenge many
    Federal and State agencies as well as many local governments.
    At our highest point, we had over 400 river gauges indicating
    flood stage across the country, and over 183 reported ice jams
    in our Nation's rivers. In the Ohio River Valley, this past
    fall and winter were the wettest on record in the past 124
    years and we have seen record reservoir levels in our
    Cumberland River projects. Our personnel industry had been in
    the flood fight for over 200 days and counting.
        Our Mississippi Valley division has been in the flood fight
    on the Mississippi River for the past 260 days and will
    continue at least for the next several weeks. For the first
    time in its 88-year history, we opened a Bonnet Carre spillway
    twice in one season, which has now been operating for 106 days.
    Within the Mississippi Yazoo Backwater Delta, record water
    levels have impacted thousands of acres of agricultural land as
    well as many communities.
        Upstream of St. Louis, the Mississippi reached its second
    highest stage ever recorded, and even this week, we are closely
    monitoring a low pressure system in the Gulf of Mexico that may
    evolve and produce a surge elevating the lower Mississippi
    River to 19 feet above sea level as early as this Friday.
        On the Missouri River, the flood event that began on March
    13th was a combination of rainfall, warm temperatures, and
    rapid snow melt all on top of saturated and frozen soil. This
    condition covered a large area, including central and western
    Nebraska, southeastern South Dakota, western Iowa, and portions
    of northern Missouri and Kansas.
        The ensuing runoff drained into uncontrolled tributaries
    that were already subject to ice jam conditions as I mentioned,
    and this combination of events led to record discharges on a
    number of rivers where we reached major flood stage in less
    than 48 hours. This event is still ongoing, as prolonged
    rainfall continues to bring river stages well out of bank from
    Omaha to the Missouri's confluence with the Mississippi just
    above St. Louis.
        On the Arkansas River, the flood event that began in May
    was also due to intense and prolonged rainfall again on top of
    saturated soils that led to record stages and flows from Tulsa,
    Oklahoma, to the river's confluence with the Mississippi. This
    event is also ongoing as well, and many of our reservoirs in
    this region have also established new pools of record.
        In many of these watersheds, our Corps dams and reservoirs
    have prevented even more significant flooding downstream of
    those projects, averting millions of dollars in additional
    property damage as well as saving countless lives. Today, I
    want to assure the committee that our Corps' number one
    priority in all of our operations remains life and public
    safety as we continue to address the many flooding challenges
    across the country. As of this morning, we have identified over
    160 levee breaches that require repair and we are working with
    States and non-Federal sponsors to expedite that work.
        We also want to thank this committee and the Congress for
    the authorities and flexibilities it has provided the Corps to
    address these and many other challenges. These tools
    accompanied with record levels of Civil Works appropriations
    for the Civil Works program are making a positive difference.
    You may have heard our Chief of Engineers speak to the ongoing
    efforts to revolutionize the way we do business as an
    enterprise. The authorities provided by this committee continue
    to enable his initiative.
        We are working to modernize the traditional delivery of the
    Civil Works program by utilizing innovative tools to accelerate
    project delivery, exploring alternative financing approaches
    and streamlining our internal processes to improve permitting
    and regulatory actions.
        I look forward to highlighting these improvements to our
    project delivery during our session today and welcome any
    questions that you may have. Thank you.
        [Hon. James' and Major General Spellmon's prepared joint
    statement follows:]

    Prepared Joint Statement of Hon. R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the
      Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
     (Civil Works) and Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding
        General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of
                                   Engineers
        Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman and distinguished
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today to discuss the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works
    program and the status of implementation of recent Water Resources
    Development Acts.
        I have been in the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
    (ASA(CW)) position for 15 months and my goals today are the same as
    they were when I started, to focus on outcomes, over process, in order
    to make the best use of the available funds. Since last year I have had
    the pleasure to meet with most of you one on one to discuss your views
    on the Corps Civil Works program. That input is appreciated and I
    remain committed to working with each of you.
        The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget provides over $4.8 billion for the
    Corps, with a focus on investments that will yield high economic and
    environmental returns or address a significant risk to public safety.
    This Budget relies on a foundation of strong relationships between the
    Corps and local communities, which allow us to work together to help
    manage, develop, restore, and protect their water resources. The Budget
    focuses on the highest performing work within the three main mission
    areas of the Corps, which are:

          commercial navigation;
          flood and storm damage reduction; and
          aquatic ecosystem restoration.

        The FY 2020 Budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
    of tools and approaches to working with local communities, whether this
    means funding projects with our cost-sharing partners, providing
    planning assistance and technical expertise to help communities make
    better informed decisions, or participating in the national and
    international conversations on how to best address our future water
    resources challenges. The Budget helps us maintain and improve our
    efforts on resiliency and sustainability--one of the challenges
    associated with the ways that we have used our water and related land
    resources in the past.
        The Budget also funds two new, innovative programs in the
    Construction account:

          $150 million for the Water Resources Reform and
    Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) Section 1043 Non-Federal
    Construction of Federal Projects program, under which the Corps would
    transfer appropriated funds to non-Federal sponsors who decide to
    construct a project on their own. This approach will improve project
    delivery and achieve cost savings; and
          $150 million for the Innovative Funding Partnerships
    program, which would be used in conjunction with funds voluntarily
    provided by non-Federal interests in excess of the non-Federal cost
    share to accelerate the completion of construction of specifically
    authorized projects.

        In addition, the Budget proposed to extend the authorization for
    Section 1043 of WRRDA 2014, as amended, which under current law expired
    on June 10, 2019.
        Since the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018
    (WRDA 2018), the Chief of Engineers has issued a report with
    recommendations on the following eight proposed water resources
    projects:

          Little Colorado River (Winslow), Arizona
          Sacramento-San Joaquin, Delta Islands and Levees,
    California
          Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's County,
    Maryland
          Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island
          City of Norfolk, Virginia
          Souris River Basin, North Dakota
          Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study--Brandon
    Road, Illinois
          Yuba River Fish Passage (Englebright and Daguerre Point
    Dams), California

        Since receiving my appointment to be ASA(CW), I've focused on how
    the Corps executes its funds. This involves identifying the highest
    priority investments and ensuring that we finish that work in a more
    timely and efficient way. This approach will ensure a better return on
    taxpayer's investment and better the lives of Americans. Under my
    oversight and direction and with the help of Lieutenant General
    Semonite and his team, the Corps is committed to working on improving
    the performance of the Civil Works program. The Corps also is using its
    engineering expertise and its relationships with project sponsors and
    stakeholders to develop new approaches to address some of the most
    pressing water resources challenges facing the Nation.
        Improving performance and timely delivery of quality products
    continues to be one of my highest priorities. To that end, we have
    completed the guidance for all provisions of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2016 and the WRDA 2018 that we determined will
    require such guidance.
        I am committed to ensuring that the Corps continues to do what it
    does better than any other organization in the world, which is to
    identify the best ways to manage, develop, restore, and protect water
    resources. Our goal is to achieve a high economic, environmental, and
    public safety return for the Nation, which will benefit all Americans.
        Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I look forward to your
    questions.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, General Spellmon and Secretary
    James for your testimony. We will now recognize individual
    Members for up to 5 minutes each for questions, and I will
    start with the questions to both of you.
        In many parts of the country, we are experiencing more
    extreme weather events. The Midwest is flooding, and outside
    this year, the West has been in extreme drought other than for
    a little bit of water. How is the Corps century-old
    infrastructure adapting to deal with the changing conditions of
    today?
        Mr. James. Ma'am, we are taking that very seriously in all
    that we are trying to do. We have initiated several different
    databases, and we are working with the other agencies like the
    USGS, the monitoring. This past budget, I entered $3 million
    for gauges in the upper Mississippi River System looking at the
    snowpack and plains pack in that system.
        I intend to try to do the same thing in other systems as
    well as California, but we are not standing by idly and
    building as usual. We are trying to keep an eye to the future
    and build in a way that what we do build will serve us all for
    years to come.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, with recent seismic events, were
    there any problems that you encountered that you were going to
    have to look at for all dams?
        Mr. James. Which events, ma'am?
        Mrs. Napolitano. The earthquake in California.
        Mr. James. Oh, my goodness. I can't say that I am an
    earthquake expert. I do say that anything we build in the
    future, and I am not sure that we haven't done it in the past,
    but in the future, as far as infrastructure from the Corps of
    Engineers, we built for seismic resistance. Even though I live
    on the New Madrid earthquake fault, I am still not an expert on
    earthquakes.
        General Spellmon. So, may I, if I could just add. We have
    had our structural, our geotechs, our engineers out on the
    three dams that are closest to the most recent earthquakes in
    California: the Isabella Dam, the Success Dam, and the Terminus
    Dam, and we have had no significant issues to report.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Can you talk about the Corps role in the
    forecast-informed reservoir operations--FIRO--in helping Corps
    projects adapt to meet current and future needs for the
    communities they serve?
        General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, I will start. Our intent
    is to continue our partnership with the State and local
    entities as well as academia as we advance this pilot. This
    pilot began in 2014 and we will wrap it up this year. We are,
    frankly, excited about the early results we had at the
    atmospheric river, as you recall, ma'am, back in February, and
    we were able to use some of the data and advanced monitoring
    technology to actually make reservoir decisions long before
    this water hit the ground.
        So, we will wrap up that report here this year and we will
    look for opportunities where else in the Nation that this
    technology may apply.
        Mrs. Napolitano. How soon can we expect the ability of the
    Corps to work this program into other types?
        General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, the technology that I had
    a chance to briefly talk with you before the hearing. The
    technology that we are talking about is very good for these
    types of conditions that we are talking about on the west
    coast. We are not certain yet scientifically that this same
    technology will apply to some of the weather patterns that we
    saw this year, say, over Arkansas or Oklahoma or the upper
    Midwest. We have more work to do.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Secretary James, your testimony
    highlights a provision that reserves $150 million for projects
    where the non-Federal sponsors willing to contribute more jump
    the line. How does this innovative partnership help small,
    rural, and disadvantaged communities partner with the Corps?
        Mr. James. I think the purpose of this process and this
    innovative funding will allow people that have the money to do
    that to move forward and do it. I am not sure it will put them
    in front of the line of those like myself that has to stay
    under the original cost share agreement. That is not what it is
    intended for. I don't think it will work that way.
        I am still working with the administration right now to get
    a better handle on how they want this program to work. When you
    read it, it doesn't look too good. Like, if you have got the
    money, put your money up and you can move out, but I am not
    sure. I don't think that is what they intend for us to do, but
    I am working on finding out.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, would it be sure that the small
    communities are not disadvantaged?
        Mr. James. Yes, absolutely. That is one of my concerns, not
    with this particular proposal by the administration. That
    doesn't concern me too much, but overall, I am concerned about
    the areas of this country that do not have the money to put up
    for infrastructure and for protection. I do not want to leave
    those people out. They deserve----
        Mrs. Napolitano. We should not. We should not leave them
    out.
        Mr. James. No, ma'am.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman. Secretary James and
    General Spellmon, thank you not only for your testimony today,
    but for the job you do and your service to our country in an
    area that is extremely important.
        When we talk about safety and the economy and the
    environment and all those things, and as I have mentioned
    earlier in my testimony, we did see unprecedented flooding on
    the Arkansas River this year. You know, to put it in
    perspective, the river typically flows around 40,000 cubic feet
    per second. When it gets to 80,000 cubic feet, you really don't
    want to be on a small boat in the river or maybe even on the
    river at all, but we were seeing flow rates of 500,000 to
    600,000 cubic feet per second. Just an enormous amount of water
    coming down the river.
        I was with the Governor and others from our congressional
    delegation on the bridge in Fort Smith there on the Arkansas-
    Oklahoma line and really was, with all the flooding, the
    intensity of it, as an engineer I was pretty impressed with the
    way that infrastructure held up, and when we saw in the
    magnitude of 1,000 homes flooded, we saw a lot of farmland
    flooded, but we saw relatively few levee failures and the
    infrastructure held up better than I think anyone expected for
    the condition it was in.
        General Owen and some others there worked well with our
    State, but in the aftermath of that, at the end of June,
    Governor Hutchinson ordered a review of Arkansas' levees and
    created a task force to study and analyze the condition of our
    levees and Secretary James, I know you mentioned it is one of
    your objectives to work closer with the local officials, and
    you know, that is statewide in the districts as well, but how
    is the Corps working with Arkansas and other States who have
    seen their levee systems damaged to conduct a comprehensive
    assessment of the levee system?
        Mr. James. I will let General Spellmon talk to that, but I
    can tell you right now, we aren't able to do a lot because the
    water hasn't fallen enough for us to get in there and get the
    soil probings and all we need to see what needs to happen.
        I can assure you one thing that will happen without any
    technology or scientific data. When these waters go down in all
    of these systems, we are going to have major levee slides that
    are going to have to be prepared before the next flood season.
    Any time we have water as high as it has been for as long as it
    has been, then when the water goes down, geotechnically,
    something happens to that soil and it slides off on the
    riverside of that levee, and that hasn't been reported to you
    yet at all, but it will be coming because it will happen.
        I will let the general talk to you, sir, just a moment
    about how we are moving out so far.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We have to do this hand in hand
    with local sponsors, not Federal sponsors, who actually own and
    operate these levees, whether Federal levees or non-Federal
    levees inside the rehabilitation program so we can, at the
    appropriate time, get the right designs done and move the money
    to get these repairs done as expeditiously as possible.
        Sir, I would just state today, we have $1.9 billion in
    known damages on our Nation's levee systems. That is primarily
    in the reach from Omaha down to Kansas City where the water has
    fallen enough for us to do the detailed assessments, but from
    St. Louis, sir, all the way down to New Orleans, and then
    certainly in your region, we have got to get this water down so
    we can do the detailed work, and come back to the Secretary and
    the Chief with our requirements.
        Mr. Westerman. But you are all hands on deck working with
    the State and local officials, and----
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Westerman. Not just in Arkansas, but in other areas as
    well.
        General Spellmon. Everywhere, sir.
        Mr. Westerman. All right. So, last WRDA I worked with Mr.
    Garamendi to pass a clean reauthorization of the National Levee
    Safety Initiative to extend its authorization to 2023. Given
    the severity of flooding and the impacts to our Nation's levees
    just these past few months, it is essential for the Corps to
    develop more efficient methods to inspect and collect and
    maintain data in the National Levee Database.
        I understand you are testing some pilot programs. I am out
    of time, but I hope that somewhere, you will be able to talk
    about innovations in the levee programs.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir, and we would welcome the
    opportunity to come see you one on one and walk you through
    where we are and where we are going with that program.
        Mr. Westerman. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr.--what is your name?
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
        Going to my side. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, you are recognized.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you and good morning. First, I want to thank the Army
    Corps for accepting my invitation to come down to south Florida
    to Monroe County for that public meeting to understand the
    effects of the Lake Okeechobee and how you regulate that lake
    and how that effects the livelihood in south Florida.
        So, thank you for that, and as you know, the Everglades is
    such an important and critical component of water quality and
    for the livelihood for Floridians. The success of restoring the
    Everglades is really going to rely on partnerships and
    collaborations between State and Federal agencies, including
    the Army Corps, and central to this management is the inflow
    that comes into Lake Okeechobee, but also managing the
    discharges from the lake.
        I find it completely unacceptable that the lake has
    released contaminated water after Congress has appropriated
    hundreds of millions of dollars for Everglades restoration in
    the past 19 years, and that the communities living in the east
    and west of Lake Okeechobee have received high levels of green-
    blue algae that have killed fish, that has sent children to the
    hospitals. We are experiencing such a crisis, a public health
    crisis in our communities because of the high toxicity that is
    coming from the Lake Okeechobee.
        Also, in the South, hundreds of thousands of acres of
    seagrass has died because of low levels of water coming down
    from Lake Okeechobee. So, clearly something is just not
    working, and I know that there is a long history. We can talk
    about what has happened in the past, but I want to take this
    opportunity to understand what we need to do and to do a better
    job of protecting the public health as we are regulating the
    lake.
        So, General Spellmon, I know that you mentioned that your
    mission and your goal is, or the priority is the life and
    public safety of your communities which I think I would assume
    public health is a part of that as well. So, who do you think
    needs to be at the table involved in making these decisions
    managing the health of the lake and the discharges, and what
    can the Corps specifically do to avoid another disaster, which
    we saw last summer?
        General Spellmon. So, the first question. Everyone has to
    be at the table. The Federal partners, not just the Corps, but
    also all the State and local agencies, and we think we have
    that in our governance meetings where Colonel Kelly makes the
    decisions on releases.
        I would just say also as a general statement that the Corps
    is all in. We are going to use all of our operational
    flexibility from our water control manual at Lake Okeechobee to
    our construction capabilities as well as our research
    capabilities to help the State deal with this water quality
    issue.
        There are no short-term solutions, ma'am, to the broad
    problem that you outlined, but there are a number of projects
    ongoing all around that lake that will contribute to the long-
    term solution for your constituents.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Who is right now responsible for
    measuring the algae levels in the lake?
        General Spellmon. Measuring?
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. The levels of toxicity in the lake?
        General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, I think that is probably
    the Florida Department of Health. Possibly the Centers for
    Disease Control. The folks in the medical community that deal
    with water quality.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And are you in close communication
    with these departments?
        General Spellmon. Yes.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Would you be able to provide to me a
    plan, a communication plan, on once you understand the levels
    of toxicity what the next steps are before you decide to
    release that water.
        General Spellmon. Yes. We can share with you how we govern
    our governance process that is the decisionmaking that our
    district commander goes through when he is deciding where and
    when to release.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. OK, and what do you think we can do in
    Congress at the Federal level to help reduce the risk of the
    toxicity, both in the short term and the long term as we
    release the water into our communities?
        General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. As I said, there is a number
    of, probably about 64 in total in the south Florida ecosystem
    restoration program that will need continual investment over
    the ensuing years so that we can get the infrastructure in
    place to help the State deal with this water quality issue.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Will the $200 million that I requested
    that has been approved and appropriated to continue the
    Everglades restoration project be helpful, and how quickly can
    we expect the completion of that project?
        General Spellmon. So, yes, ma'am. Absolutely. It's going to
    help us expedite this program. So, with the $200 million and
    the President's budget request, we will complete the Kissimmee
    River restoration next year. We will continue our construction
    and oversight for the C-43 West Storage Basin. We will continue
    our construction oversight in design for the Indian River
    Lagoon South on the east side of Lake Okeechobee. That project
    will be complete in 2022, and of course, we will continue our
    development and planning with the South Florida Water
    Management District for the design of the Everglades
    Agricultural Area Reservoir. That is all next year.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, General.
        I yield back my time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
        Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, and just I want to
    follow up on Ranking Member Westerman. You said that your
    preliminary numbers between Omaha and Kansas City are $1.9
    billion?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. And----
        General Spellmon. That is for the levees that we can get
    down to the toe and actually do adequate assessments. We know
    there are many more levees that have----
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Right----
        General Spellmon [continuing]. Been overtopped and damaged
    throughout the country.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. And obviously that it is going to
    take a little while with those assessments. Do you have any
    idea what that number might rise to?
        General Spellmon. Sir, I don't. It is still raining. We
    have got a large storm coming in here this weekend. We have
    still got a lot of flow in the upper Missouri River that has
    yet to make its way through the basin. Sir, I don't have a good
    estimate for you.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. So, that is just on those breaches
    that you have been able to get into, then.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. And real quick, and I don't know if
    this is for the Secretary or not, but as far as the Midwest
    supplemental goes, when is that money going to hit the ground?
    We have kind of got a clock ticking out there.
        Mr. James. I am sorry, sir. I didn't understand.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. The Midwest supplemental dollars
    that were approved. Do you know when that money is going to be
    distributed?
        Mr. James. That money has been separated into different
    line items at this time. The general may have a paper on that.
    I don't, but as soon as we can get our hands on it, which we
    don't yet.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. OK.
        Mr. James. I don't have the money yet, but it is hopefully
    pending quickly, but we can start work on some areas pretty
    soon, but doggone it, it is the rivers are still just so high
    there is not a lot of work we are going to be able to do. Like,
    if we were going to repair a levee, how are we going to get the
    bar area?
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Yeah, no. I understand.
        Mr. James. Yes, sir, and so, but the money is coming, but
    we don't have our hands on it, and I am not sure how it is
    divided up.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. OK.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So, that $3\1/4\ billion in
    this, the FY 2019 supplemental that is coming to the Corps.
    About $2 billion of that, sir, we are able to use nationwide to
    deal with some of the damages that we have seen to the levees,
    and then also of our Corps projects, our locks and dams.
        The investigations account and the construction account,
    those are tied to States and regions that were impacted by last
    year's hurricanes, Michael and Florence, and also the typhoons
    out in the Pacific.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Is there going to be another
    supplemental request? I am assuming there will be as we move
    forward.
        Mr. James. There will have to be. You see how that is
    split----
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Yeah----
        Mr. James [continuing]. Up already, and I can tell you now
    that might not even take care of Missouri, let alone Arkansas.
    The rivers now, not the States.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Yeah.
        Mr. James. The Arkansas River and the Mississippi River. It
    is just hard to tell, but if I were a betting man, I would bet
    we will have to have more money to attack the damage that has
    been done.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thanks, gentleman.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary James and General Spellmon, I think everyone on
    this committee recognizes the extraordinary pressure that you
    are under. The flooding across the Nation from the west coast
    all the way to the east coast and everything in between. We
    appreciate your service. We appreciate the challenge that you
    face.
        I will draw your attention to the reality of change and
    that the way in which we have conducted flood operations in the
    past has been based on historic situations. We are no longer in
    such a situation. There is a project that has been ongoing in
    California now for several years called the forecast-informed
    reservoir operations program, drawing the attention of the
    committee to that, this is based upon real-time information
    that is now available from satellites and other technologies
    that are available, and we appreciate the implementation of
    that on the rivers in California, and I suspect it may be
    applicable across the Nation.
        Now, I have a whole series of questions that I am just
    going to submit for the record. No use taking the time of the
    committee or your time here today. Secretary James, projects in
    California in the Sacramento Valley do thank you for coming
    out--both of you for coming out and observing what we are doing
    in the Central Valley.
        Interesting article in the Sacramento Bee. If the same
    downpour that hit Washington were to hit the American River,
    water would be 30 feet deep in Sacramento, so we know we have
    problems across the Nation. Specifically, General Spellmon,
    section 204 and section 1043 provide flexibility for local
    agencies to conduct programs. Without going into the detail,
    could you please explain why the Corps is so reluctant to move
    aggressively using these authorities to devolve programs and
    construction to the local agencies?
        General Spellmon. Sir, I would say we do want to
    aggressively use them. We are after anything, any authority or
    capability that will allow us to, as the Secretary would say,
    move dirt or get to construction or complete projects quicker.
    So, sir, if there are examples in your district where we are
    not doing that, we would like to know and to take action.
        Mr. Garamendi. We will so inform you. There has been a
    reluctance to move forward aggressively using these programs,
    and if that were to happen, projects would be completed
    quicker, possibly sooner. I can give you one specific example
    on the Feather River, where the quarry did not allow the local
    agency to undertake the project, when it would have saved
    significant money. Probably an issue for the rest of the Nation
    as you deal with the flooding that is occurring in the Midwest.
        I will leave it at that. I do draw the attention of the
    committee to the reality of change and the necessity for the
    flood operations to reflect the new reality and to use
    information that is now available from multiple areas,
    satellites to other technologies.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary James, General Spellmon, I want to thank you very
    much for being here today and thank you for your testimony.
        I think you are familiar with the watershed. The
    Mississippi River watershed. Certainly, Secretary James, you
    spent a good bit of time working on that in your career. Right
    now, we are facing a scenario, as you heard other Members talk
    about how in Baton Rouge, in my hometown, we are seeing 1.3
    million cubic feet of water pass per second through that river
    system, one of the largest watersheds in the world.
        We now, as you know, have a tropical depression in the Gulf
    of Mexico that appears to be coming up in the next few days
    that, by some model projections, is going to cause the
    Mississippi River levees to overflow because of that higher
    storm surge coming in at the bottom of the levee system.
        We are draining water from Montana to New York to Canada,
    all through this huge watershed. What do you say to the folks
    in Louisiana? What do you say to them that we are draining
    water from all of these other States? As you know, the inputs
    into that river system were minimal from Louisiana and because
    of this huge amount of water that is coming from them, coming
    from all these other States, and now the storm surge is going
    to cause overtopping.
        It is not our water overtopping. It is everybody else's
    water overtopping. We have seen impacts to our fisheries, our
    commercial fisheries, and our recreational fisheries as a
    result of the Bonnet Carre spillway. And General, as you
    mentioned in your testimony, normally open once every 10 years
    since the 1930s when it was built. We have opened it four times
    in the past 4 years. As you mentioned, the first time in
    history twice this year. Twice in 1 year. What do you say to
    people down there when we are experiencing the flooding because
    of what is happening in the upper basin?
        Mr. James. Well, if it wasn't so serious and if I didn't
    think it would be taken the wrong way, I would say, ``You
    better move,'' but it is serious and there is so much industry
    and economic return to this Nation from Baton Rouge to New
    Orleans, and also over in the Atchafalaya, some of the other
    estuaries down there that we can't say, ``You better move.''
    That would be very silly, so what we have got to do is start
    addressing the problems based on, like, Mr. Garamendi said, on
    what we know now, not what we knew in the 1930s, the 1940s, and
    in the 1950s.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And Mr. Secretary, we are giving
    you all an opportunity to do that and the WRDA bill became law
    last year. We included a provision all over every controlled
    structure looking at how to do a better job managing the water
    on Atchafalaya, Red, the Mississippi River system, and better
    utilize old river control structure. As I understand, you are
    looking at a 3-year study. I just don't think we have 3 years.
        You heard the urgency from Ranking Member Graves and
    others, and Ranking Member Westerman about this issue. I don't
    think we have that kind of time, and I want to urge you to move
    quickly, and you are right. We can't move. We are 1 of the top
    energy producing States in the Nation, top commercial fisheries
    producing State in the Nation, 5 of the top 15 ports in the
    Nation. You can't replicate this capacity elsewhere.
        I want to pivot and go off what Congressman Garamendi and I
    know Congressman Rouda who is here has concerns about this as
    well. You mentioned it in your testimony. Section 1043. The
    Corps of Engineers has $100 billion backlog in authorized
    projects. One hundred billion dollars.
        One of the ways we can help to speed up the implementation
    of these projects and help to break down this backlog is to use
    section 1043 which provides for local sponsors, State and local
    sponsors to carry the project out. This became law in 2014. The
    guidance was just issued in June, nearly 4 years later, and so
    I think that I actually want to follow on Congressman
    Garamendi's comments.
        It does appear that maybe the urgency is not there, and
    then as you know, in 2018, WRDA bill, Congress extended it. The
    implementation guidance, we did extend it. There is one
    technical issue in the extension that I think has become a
    problem, but if there is a desire on the part of the
    administration to continue this and to utilize this as a tool
    to address this backlog and deepening rivers and improving
    flood protection, ecological restoration and other Corps
    functions, we need to figure out how to get to yes, not how to
    get to no.
        Can you talk a little bit about how we are going to move
    forward on 1043 and what some of your experience is with McCook
    Reservoir in Harris County using 1043 to implement?
        Mr. James. The experience so far is very good. We have not
    had any problems. Now, McCook was done a little differently
    because it was a new venture. The way we did that we won't be
    doing again I don't think, but as far as Harris County, they
    are tickled to death with it. It is letting them do what they
    needed to do, own those reservoirs down there. It is a good
    tool for the people that can afford it. There is no doubt
    that----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Secretary, the 140-page
    guidance that you all issued in June basically says that you
    all just acknowledged it. It basically is going to be useless
    at this point because the program expired, yet we did extend it
    in WRDA 2018. I just want to ask you if you all could go back,
    work with your attorneys, figure out how to get to yes, not to
    no, because this is going to be an important tool for us moving
    forward.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
        Ms. Finkenauer.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Well, thank you, Assistant Secretary James
    and also Major General Spellmon. It is great to have you guys
    here with us today. So, I represent Iowa's First Congressional
    District right there on the Mississippi. So, I have actually
    quite a few questions and if in the interest of time if you can
    keep it brief, that would be great.
        First, when I met with Colonel Sattinger from Rock Island
    back in March, he told me the Cedar Rapids eastern floodwall
    project has been fully funded and construction will start this
    October. Obviously, great, great news for our community that
    was devastated by flooding back in 2008 and desperately needs
    that floodwall done.
        I was just wondering if we could get an update from you on
    the timeline for this project and if there are any remaining
    hurdles to getting that job done?
        General Spellmon. No, ma'am. No hurdles that I am familiar
    with. This year, we have already issued three architect
    engineer task orders to commence the design, and as you have
    mentioned, we will issue the first two construction contracts
    by the end of the fiscal year.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Great. Thank you so much, and next, I want
    to ask about the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
    Program. Obviously, NESP. This program is obviously critical
    for farmers and other shippers in my State who use the
    Mississippi to move their products. Congress authorized this
    project over a decade ago, but it keeps getting pushed back, so
    we know there is a backlog of waterways projects, but this
    year, the President has requested a 31-percent cut to the
    Corps.
        To be clear, the Mississippi River is our competitive edge,
    especially at a time when our farmers are getting hit on all
    sides due to flooding, but then also because of the trade war,
    and this is a time where we need to be investing more in our
    waterways and our infrastructure, not less. Can you help me
    understand, Secretary James, why the backlog of these projects,
    including NESP, has been underfunded and why NESP hasn't moved
    forward more quickly?
        Mr. James. I have been familiar with NESP in my prior life
    as a member of the Mississippi River Commission. In that life,
    I really felt like we handled that wrong. Since I got here in
    this job, I have discovered that the Congress and the industry
    wants to do it as it is: navigation, ecosystem, restoration,
    sustainability; together.
        Ms. Finkenauer. OK.
        Mr. James. And all those years, I didn't think that was a
    good idea. I thought we should have them separated so they
    could be funded separately. Now, I got here, and I found out
    that is not what the people want, so I don't even talk about
    that anymore, but let me address the backlog just a minute,
    Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Graves said $100 billion backlog, and that is what we
    put out.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Mm-hm.
        Mr. James. I am going to be working on that because I don't
    believe that. I don't believe we have got a $100 billion
    backlog. We have got projects that have been authorized for
    years and years and years. I don't consider those backlog. I
    only consider projects that have been authorized and
    appropriated at least $1 that means the Congress is willing to
    put its money where its mouth is, and I call that backlog. It
    still----
        Ms. Finkenauer. And Secretary James, I am sorry. I am just,
    in the interest of time, to follow up on that, if it is not the
    backlog or if it is not the money, what do we need to do as a
    Congress to move NESP forward?
        Mr. James. So far, it has been the lack of will. That is
    why it hadn't moved forward, and it is very much needed.
        Ms. Finkenauer. As----
        Mr. James. Those locks and dams in the upper Mississippi
    River are falling apart.
        Ms. Finkenauer. They are, and I mean, it is authorized over
    a decade ago, and so, I know this is, you know, your oversight
    on this as well, and we have got to make sure that we are doing
    this, and we are happy to work with you any way we can to make
    sure that these projects move forward. They are desperately
    needed and thank you for your time as well.
        And lastly, I do want to follow up as well just about
    flooding in general. As you know, Iowa farmers endured months
    of not being able to move their goods down the Mississippi
    because of the prolonged flooding. This is only going to get
    worse. You know, these so-called 500-year floods are now
    happening every 5 years now.
        Major General Spellmon, is the Corps ready to manage the
    flooding in the Mississippi River, particularly given the need
    to balance the Corps' other functions like navigation and
    recreation? If we were to redesign how the Army Corps of
    Engineers manages the Mississippi River watershed, what do you
    think needs to change or actually work differently so you can
    more effectively control for flooding?
        General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, after we get through this
    next flood fight, every year, we will conduct an after-action
    review after we get through this event to see what are the
    opportunities where we can further improve our operations up
    and down the basin.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Would it be helpful to have some research
    on that and--? OK. Great. Great. Thank you so much and thank
    you both for your time today. This is obviously very important,
    and I look forward to continuing these conversations.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Finkenauer.
        Mr. Weber, you are recognized.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate the opportunity.
    I am from the Texas gulf coast. As Secretary James knows,
    Hurricane Ike in 2008 hit, Hurricane Harvey a couple of years
    ago, and my three coastal counties were ground zero for Harvey
    flooding.
        The implications are just absolutely astounding and
    Secretary James, I was glad to hear you say in your earlier
    comments that you feel like you have identified, at least, and
    feel like it needs some fixing, obviously, that the Corps has
    gotten away from working with local partners. You also said
    that improving performance was one of your highest priorities,
    and that is good news.
        The Texas gulf coast, and one of my good colleague's
    friends down there, Sally, a blogger from Galveston, keeps me
    reminded on how important this is because we actually--she has
    got a sheet for us and I want to make sure that you all are
    following the study that is being done about coastal barrier
    protections. Some call it the Ike dike. And this affects not
    just our district but all across the country, and there is a
    whole lot of reasons for that, but just a little history.
        The WRDA of 2007 actually authorized the Army Corps to
    develop a coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration
    plan to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
    flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction,
    and ecosystem restoration in the coastal areas of Texas. And
    like my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Graves, said, things just
    aren't happening enough.
        A couple of facts that I think my colleagues would be
    interested in. In Texas, in our country, in terms of energy,
    the Texas gulf coast region produces 27 percent of the Nation's
    gasoline, 60 percent of the Nation's aviation fuel, so it has
    national security and national economic ramifications. We have
    35 percent of the Nation's natural gas production and 42
    percent of the Nation's specialty chemical feedstock.
        So this has national economic implications, national
    security implications, not to mention there are 6 million
    people, families, businesses, jobs along the gulf coast that
    need protecting. It is not a matter of if we get another
    hurricane, it is when. To the general's comment about--I think
    he said the depression out in the gulf you are seeing now, you
    know, it is just a matter of time and it is going to happen.
        There are some studies being done about the implications of
    the coastal barrier protection plan that is needed along the
    Texas gulf coast, and it starts at the Louisiana border and
    goes really all the way down the coast, but mainly in the area
    of the gulf coast it does all of the fuel production.
        Are you all mindful of that study, Secretary James? The
    Army Corps is coming out with some very current stuff called
    the Tentatively Selected Plan, TSP. And I know that Colonel
    Lars Zetterstrom did a fabulous job, but people are a little
    frustrated about the way information was rolled out and the
    amount of time it was taking, and quite frankly the plan that
    was selected.
        Is your office monitoring that situation and are you aware
    of the ways that they are developing that plan and what they
    are recommending?
        Mr. James. I am not, but I will be.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Well, we would love for you to reach out to
    them and get--I don't know what the right word is--boned up on
    it so that you know, because it is super, super important to
    our district. We have five ports on the Texas gulf coast. Some
    have four, but we have five.
        We are the 13th largest exporting district in the country
    out of 435 Members of Congress. So it is huge. The Port of
    Beaumont moves more military personnel and equipment than any
    other port in the Nation. So it is huge for national security
    and national economic calculations.
        For example, when Hurricane Ike hit in 2008, I was told by
    John Shimkus even up in Ohio, up in that area, that fuel spiked
    about 60 cents a gallon. So we want the Army Corps to be paying
    specific, close attention to that and make sure that that is
    getting rolled out in a timely fashion and to make sure that
    that is a priority, and we would appreciate any feedback you
    can give us on that.
        General Spellmon, are you aware of it?
        General Spellmon. Sir, I am. So I would just say to add to
    your comments, this is a very large and complicated project,
    and the fact that we have got some energetic comments from the
    public and industry back on that draft study is important to us
    because we take that all into account, and that is just going
    to make that project even better when it does get to----
        Mr. Weber. What was the number of those comments?
        General Spellmon. Sir, I don't know.
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        General Spellmon. It was thousands.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, absolutely. I am thinking it was like
    8,000. But we really want to focus on the importance of that
    and the study that was authorized and the fact that it has huge
    implications not just for our area but for the Army, for our
    national defense, as well as our economy.
        And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back 1 second.
        Oh, and if I may, before I do, I want to say happy birthday
    to my colleague on the left, Brian Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, happy birthday. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Malinowski, you are recognized.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
    appreciate a chance to hear from our witnesses and just to
    reiterate our appreciation for the work that the Corps does. It
    is vital. It is essential. It is greatly needed. You do it with
    too few resources. We all make demands on you, which you strive
    to meet within those limited resources, and I recognize that it
    is sometimes a challenge.
        That said, I am going to make demands on you because that
    is our job. And the district that I represent in New Jersey
    contains portions of the Green Brook Sub Basin and the Rahway
    River Basin. We have significant flooding challenges,
    particularly the Rahway River; in recent years it has inundated
    communities in suburban New Jersey that had not experienced
    that kind of flooding in past years, and we know it will happen
    again.
        We have been working, as you know, with the Corps. Our
    local elected officials have been working with you for years
    now to try to come up with a plan to deal with this. We were
    working fairly well with the New York district for some years
    and responsibility for the Rahway River project was moved, as
    you may know, to the New England district.
        And whether it is fair or not, I have to say there has been
    some frustration with that move, both the geographic distance,
    greater geographic distance of the New England district, and
    also a sense among some of our local elected officials that
    proposals that they are sending up are being rejected, and not
    just rejected, but without the sort of feedback and input that
    would help us figure out a way forward.
        So I think my first question is just I am hoping to better
    understand why the management of the project was moved from New
    York to New England, and then perhaps we can take it from
    there.
        General Spellmon. Sir, a great question. And this study has
    been ongoing for some time. The team from New York district,
    they outlined 17 alternatives; they have 17 alternatives to get
    after this particular problem set in your district. And we were
    having a lot of trouble just getting to agreement with the non-
    Federal sponsor on options that would work that came back that
    were economically feasible, meaning that they had a benefit-to-
    cost ratio above 1.
        So this happens from time to time when we are just not
    seeing forward progress. We will move and to try to get another
    set of eyes, another set of leaders on the problem. I am taking
    notes on the frustrations that you have shared on New England
    district and I will jump on that, sir.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. We are--I mean, you should
    expect another proposal from the local sponsors, from the
    mayors council that has been working on this. And again, I am
    not asking for any bending of the rules or special treatment
    for us. I think we agree that this is something that needs to
    be dealt with because the flooding will continue to happen.
        I am asking for some personal attention from you and
    obviously, if there is anything that my office can do to help
    speed this along, to help if there is any communication
    difficulty, we stand ready to help. It is a huge, huge priority
    for me and for the people that I represent.
        So thank you and let's stay in touch. If I can have your
    commitment to do that, I will be very, very grateful.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Bost, you are next.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank you
    for--over here--thank you for being here, and also, General,
    thank you. You can pretty well guess what question I am going
    to ask. As you know, I have spoken about it several times, and
    that is the Len Small levee that is in my district.
        Let me tell you what is happening right now so we get it on
    the record. Dozens of landowners and homeowners can only reach
    their home by boat, and some of them can't reach their home at
    all because they can't get through the current at the level
    that it is moving through.
        Two State highways and a number of roads in the county are
    submerged and some have significant damage. The current at the
    breach site is so strong, we have had two occasions where it
    has actually sucked barges traveling upstream into the breach.
    Twice it has happened now, but also then the other day, just
    this past weekend, the current ripped apart a tow and sent
    several barges through the breach site.
        I have a news article describing what happened, and, Madam
    Chair, if I can, I would like to have unanimous consent to
    enter this into the record.
        Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
        [The information is on pages 120-122.]
        Mr. Bost. I have been saying for awhile that the levee
    breach is a hazard to navigation. The Len Small levee does not
    qualify because the flood prevention benefits of the levee did
    not produce a positive BCR. Now, we have worked with you and we
    have worked with this committee and we have put things together
    over the years. Now, I understand this has been going on not
    just for this flood case but it has been going on since after
    the holiday flood of 2015, and then from 2016, it is about four
    or five times I have actually spoken in this committee and on
    the floor showing maps of the danger of the navigational change
    that may occur there.
        Now, let me tell you, though, that the--you know this, that
    the Corps has spent millions of dollars in riprap under its
    navigation authority to attempt to stabilize the channel. Let
    me also explain this: the riprap is gone. It got washed away,
    because unless we make the investment and figure out a way to
    fix it.
        So the quick question that I have: now we can agree that
    the navigation threat is no longer just a threat, it is real.
    We have seen it happen. This is a problem and we have to fix
    it.
        Now, I am going to ask, Mr. Secretary, shouldn't the Corps
    consider other economic benefits like commercial navigation
    when conducting the BCR for non-Federal levee repair,
    particularly when the levee structure serves multiple purposes,
    as this one does?
        Mr. James. In my opinion, yes, sir.
        Mr. Bost. OK. I am looking forward to us working together
    to try to cure and fix this problem. The constituents and the
    people along the river are becoming--you know it better than
    anybody. That is where you are from, right--you can look across
    the river almost at it. And this is a situation where common
    horse sense has flown out the window.
        We are looking at--and this is for members of the committee
    and to have on record. If we don't cure this problem and that
    cut occurs all the way across, now all of a sudden because of
    the change in the river level, over the 17 miles around that
    bend, now all of a sudden it drops that same level in 3 miles
    and the navigation stops. That will change the way we transport
    our goods, whether it is for agriculture or anything else, when
    we have to all of a sudden stop north of Cairo, transfer off of
    the barge into trucks, take it south, and then move it that
    way. This is not a good way to do business.
        The American people can see it is an issue, but
    unfortunately, whether it is Congress or working with the
    Corps, we can't get this figured out. I am looking forward to
    making sure we get it figured out and we get it fixed. And I
    don't know what you would suggest or the general would suggest
    that we can do, because this isn't going away. We have got to
    get it fixed.
        Mr. James. Congressman Bost, I would appreciate it, when
    your schedule allows, that I could come see you----
        Mr. Bost. I look forward to that.
        Mr. James [continuing]. And we look into this a little
    further. I mean, it has been approached so far like a normal
    levee project, low BCR, blah, blah, blah. I am not sure we
    shouldn't look at some of this other information.
        Mr. Bost. It truly is a case where this is when people
    watch what we do here in Congress. They think, you know what, I
    am a simple businessperson and I can figure this out, or I am a
    simple farmer and I can figure out how to cure a problem when
    it develops, but yet we have had this problem since--and I am
    not blaming you. I thank you for the offer. But I want the
    people of this committee to know and understand, we have got to
    start thinking properly and quit looking like the Congress that
    can't get anything done on issues like this.
        We have got to work together and see when a problem is
    developing to this level so that we can actually focus and work
    on it. And the people in my district--the farmers there, you
    know, this isn't about their land anymore. Their land is gone.
    It is under so much sand it doesn't matter. You are not going
    to--you know, unless somebody wants to open up a sandpit down
    there when we get the levee back in place, there is just not a
    lot we can do there. But----
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [presiding]. Thank you, your time is
    up.
        Mr. Bost. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman
    Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and my first question is to Mr.
    James. First, thank you for coming to our committee and
    describing to us the important work of the Army Corps across
    the Nation. But I want to take this opportunity to mention two
    projects in my district, which I think are moving along. I just
    want to mention that, maybe also ask General Spellmon also
    about that.
        One is an ongoing study for navigation improvements at the
    Port of Long Beach. I represent the Port of Long Beach. And
    first I would like to say to Mr. James, it would be wonderful
    to our port complex, the port complex of Los Angeles and Long
    Beach, which is the largest container port complex in the
    Western Hemisphere--40 percent of the goods of the Nation come
    in and out of L.A.-Long Beach--if you would come and visit our
    port complex.
        The Army Corps and the L.A. district in particular have
    been tremendous partners to our port complex, and especially
    now I am talking about the Port of Long Beach, ensuring that
    the port remains a key component or a key or a vital component
    in the global supply chain.
        What we are talking about are improvements that will enable
    the safe navigation of these megaships which now have been
    developed. And so, but we need really help in making sure the
    navigation, that they can come in and out of our harbor. And
    now, because of the size of the ships, they have to wait until
    there are tide windows to safely operate. And so I just want to
    alert you to that; that is moving through the process.
        In addition I am also very proud to represent Orange
    County, or parts of Orange County, which have experienced
    substantial population growth in recent decades, and flood
    control improvements along the Westminster watershed can help
    to prevent billions of dollars of damage during significant
    flood events and they are going to save my constituents
    millions of dollars of flood insurance premiums. And so I am
    hoping that we can have the Chief's Report signed for that
    project so we can authorize the needed improvements in the WRDA
    bill next year.
        But my question is a little different that I want to ask
    you. In the past two WRDA bills, Congress has included
    provisions to encourage the use of natural infrastructure for
    Army Corps projects, but these project alternatives often face
    challenges because some of their benefits are difficult to
    quantify. So the first question is can you tell me how the Army
    Corps currently calculates the cost effectiveness of nature-
    based infrastructure, and has the Corps been working to develop
    better evaluation methods for natural infrastructure?
        Mr. James. Congressman, if it is OK, I will let General
    Spellmon take that.
        Mr. Lowenthal. That is fine.
        Mr. James. Because I am not cognizant of it.
        Mr. Lowenthal. OK. General Spellmon, we are talking about
    now----
        General Spellmon. Sir, I had a great visit.
        Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Looking towards natural kinds
    of infrastructure.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. I had a great visit out to your
    district in early January. In my previous assignment out in the
    Northwest, I had the opportunity to implement some natural-
    based infrastructure in some of our flood-control projects, and
    I do look forward to the opportunity in doing that in other
    parts of the Nation as well.
        Sir, I would have to have our economists come in, and I
    would be happy to do that, to come see you and walk you through
    the math on how we calculate the cost effectiveness. With 1
    minute and 8 seconds remaining, I would be challenged to do
    that in a nutshell here this morning. But happy to come sit
    down with you.
        Mr. Lowenthal. But what I am saying, though, is that it is
    sometimes difficult, not because of the Army Corps, to measure
    some of these natural infrastructure cost-benefits, and I am
    just hoping that the Corps is working on better ways or more
    effective ways of measuring the impacts of natural
    infrastructure.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lowenthal. And with that, I yield back.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman
    Mast from the great State of Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        General Spellmon, 9 of the last 11 years, in the name of
    flood control, water has been discharged out of Lake Okeechobee
    to Florida's east and west coasts. This isn't new news to
    anybody.
        My question is simple, pointed, but important. Has the Army
    Corps of Engineers transferred toxic water--toxic water--from
    Lake Okeechobee to the east through the C-44 Reservoir into the
    St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon, and to the west
    through the Caloosahatchee River?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We have conveyed water out of
    the system that has contained cyanobacteria and harmful algae
    blooms. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mast. And the Corps considers that toxic?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you. I appreciate that acknowledgment. It
    is important so that we can move forward as we try to
    accurately weigh the risks and assess what is going on as we
    try to manage both flood control for those to the south of the
    Herbert Hoover dike, and human health and human safety impacts
    to those to the east and west of Florida's Lake Okeechobee, as
    we are going summer after summer trying to work through these
    long-term infrastructure projects that you have been working on
    and your predecessors have been working on. So I appreciate
    that acknowledgment.
        I do want to submit for the record the considerations by
    both the Centers for Disease Control, the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection and the EPA, if you will take this by
    unanimous----
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. No objection.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you.
        [The information is on pages 122-128.]
        Mr. Mast. The CDC also notes that microcystins are a potent
    liver toxin produced by some species of cyanobacteria. The
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection says the mere
    presence of cyanobacteria blooms warrants the State to issue a
    warning. The EPA has reported cyanobacteria and their toxins
    are considered a serious threat to human health, and on May 22,
    the EPA declared that cyanotoxins above eight parts per billion
    posed too great of a risk for human contact, and so I
    appreciate you taking that for the record.
        I would like to move to simply a thank you, General
    Spellmon. I have in front of me a letter from you to the State
    of Florida in which you outline, ``In order to reduce future
    risk to the public, the Jacksonville district will lower Lake
    Okeechobee levels as much as possible within the operational
    band of the Lake Okeechobee regulations schedule prior to the
    start of the hurricane season 2019.''
        And I am giving you the most sincere--I hope you take this
    as the most sincere thank you that can be given from each of my
    constituents and from myself. You are making a real difference
    in our community with this operational and managerial change.
    For businesses, for people's health, for people's recreation,
    you are making a difference. It is not going unnoticed and we
    want to thank you for that.
        And in that, I yield back.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman
    Rouda for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, General
    Spellmon and Secretary James, for joining us here today. Harley
    Rouda from Orange County, California. My district is the 48th
    Congressional District of California. It represents about 80
    percent of the coastline of Orange County, and there are a
    couple of key projects there. One of the key ones is the Santa
    Ana River project, and the Santa Ana River project was once
    characterized by the Army Corps of Engineers as, quote, ``the
    worst flood threat west of the Mississippi.''
        This river is located entirely in southern California, the
    largest river in the area, and it meets the Pacific Ocean
    between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.
        With sea levels projected to continue rising and the
    increasing intensity of storms and natural disasters, the
    planned lower river channel modification for flood control
    along the 30 miles of the Santa Ana River from Prado Dam to the
    Pacific Ocean is of critical importance to our constituents.
        We have, as I mentioned, two major projects that we are
    interested in, the Santa Ana River mainstream project and the
    Westminster and East Garden Grove project, which rely on
    section 1043 authorization. It is estimated that these projects
    would prevent $40 billion in damages, protect over 100,000
    acres from flooding, and benefit over 3.5 million people within
    Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties during a design
    storm event.
        General Spellmon and Mr. Secretary, would you both agree
    that the Santa Ana mainstream project and the Westminster and
    East Garden Grove projects are critical to maintaining flood
    safety in Orange County?
        Mr. James. Taking from what you say, sir, yes. I haven't
    actually visited that area yet. It is on the list, just haven't
    been there yet. But I think General Spellmon may have been
    there.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Sir, I visited both of these
    projects from top to bottom and I agree, they are very
    important floor risk management projects.
        Mr. Rouda. And can you help? Can we kind of go back to a
    little bit of your testimony a little bit earlier, Secretary?
    It was about--and, General, please jump in as well. I am just
    trying to get a better handle of the authorizations--the
    projects have been authorized--and how well funded, what the
    gap is between funding and the projects. Because I believe I
    read somewhere that based on the President's budget, we are
    looking at a 100-year timeframe to address the currently
    authorized projects. Of course that doesn't include any new
    projects coming on board over that 100 years. So can you give
    us a little bit more information as to what the delta, what the
    plug is between what has been authorized and what is actually
    needed to meet our infrastructure needs in these areas?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So the 100-year timeline that
    you have read about, it looks at the--roughly the $98 billion
    backlog of projects where we have a Chief's Report on the table
    but the project has not received funding yet. So that is how we
    have defined the backlog.
        With the generous appropriations from Congress of recent
    years, $6.9, $6.8, almost $7 billion, about $1 billion of that
    is dedicated to actual construction. So that is the math. One
    billion dollars a year in construction against a $100 billion
    backlog.
        Mr. Rouda. OK, thank you. And help me understand, too, when
    you do the analytics on any of these projects, are you taking
    into account the impact of climate change and the need for
    addressing it both in terms of today as well as terms and
    forecast for future years?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir, we do. So the recommendations
    that we take first to General Semonite and then to Secretary
    James look at a variety of criteria. As I mentioned earlier,
    life and public safety always--those projects generally rise to
    the top of our recommendation. Then we have across the country
    a number of legal mandates and requirements by court order that
    we have to fulfill. We have to pursue those projects. Some
    projects have a national security component to them. Generally
    you see a very high priority. And then we get into things like
    BCRs, economic and environmental returns.
        And then finally, sir, I would just say what is always high
    on our list, we want to finish what we start. If Congress has
    appropriated dollars to begin a project, we want to see it
    through to completion.
        Mr. Rouda. And one last question. Does that mean you
    believe climate change is real and impacting our infrastructure
    needs? And that question is to both of you.
        Mr. James. I am a civil engineer, I am not a scientist and
    I am not a weather forecaster. But I will tell you that we are
    making every effort, as far as I am concerned and as far as I
    know, to build sustainable infrastructure. Now, that means
    looking at--today, Mr. Graves over there, Garret Graves,
    mentioned that himself that we can't look back to the 1930s,
    and we are not doing that. And the technology is so much better
    today. We are working with NOAA to try to get rain forecasts
    accurate up to 24 hours, within 24 hours. We are not there yet,
    but we are working on that, things like that.
        Now, that is my perspective on your question.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir, briefly. So with regard to
    climate, I always encourage people to read the National Climate
    Assessment. You don't have to read the whole thing, but there
    are portions in there that talk about some of the significant
    changes in precipitation patterns that we are seeing,
    particularly in the Midwest, the quantity of events and the
    volume of rainfall that is falling.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouda.
        Mr. LaMalfa, you are next.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the panel
    being here today. I just wanted to point out a couple issues in
    my area as well as my colleague in the adjacent district here
    on Yuba River, Feather River. My understanding is General
    Semonite has finalized the Chief's Report on the Lower Yuba
    River ecosystem restoration project there, so we are looking
    forward to that, working with the Yuba County Water Agency.
    They do a lot of great work, and so looking forward to the
    completion of this study on getting that ecosystem restoration
    going, which will be helpful for a lot of good reasons.
        So, moving on to the Sutter Basin Feather River west levee
    project, again, these issues start to--they run through both
    districts, myself and Mr. Garamendi, as these projects go along
    and we want to see the completion of that on the south half.
        And so we are glad that, Secretary James, you have been a
    great supporter of this project--appreciate that a lot--and as
    well as working with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency,
    which has really been emblematic of what a local agency, when
    allowed to take over a project that the Corps has overseen--we
    have gotten some great results and, indeed, moved up the
    timeline on the completion of that in Butte and Sutter
    Counties. What could have been 2024, it has saved $300 million
    and could have been done as soon as 2017 to 2019, and we should
    see that project completed in 2020. So that will be great for
    the flood control and the public safety of that area.
        So we will still be ahead of time and much, much under
    budget. So I hope this can be an example we can work on and use
    in many more projects around the country.
        What lessons, Secretary James, do you think we have learned
    from Sutter Butte and the section 1043 agreements the Army
    Corps has made on this? And then what do you think as far as
    cost savings and timelines going forward on--like we have done
    on this on future projects? What do you see as--how big of a
    thing is this for your administration on that?
        Mr. James. Well, my thinking on it is that we can save time
    and we can save money if the project sponsor can afford it.
    That is not every area in this country that can, but the ones
    that can and have the expertise. There are areas in this
    country that need flood control, for example, that there is not
    a bulldozer or a track hoe operator and equipment in their
    area, even if they had money.
        So that is what I say. The availability of these
    authorizations, like 1043, are going to be very helpful in a
    lot of areas of this country, but they won't fit everybody.
        Mr. LaMalfa. In a hearing we had here about a year, maybe
    1\1/2\ years ago, it was something that some of you, you and
    your colleagues, had brought up as a model to have a lot more
    of that under this administration. And so are you seeing that
    that actually is playing out as a model for other areas? Is
    that being put in place in any widespread----
        Mr. James. You mean Sutter or do we have----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, Sutter, we are almost there, right?
        Mr. James. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. But in other examples around the country was
    what the administration was----
        Mr. James. We have only had two, the McCook Reservoir in
    Chicago and Harris County in Texas. Both sponsors of those
    projects have engaged 1043 and seem to be very happy with what
    is happening with them.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Good.
        Mr. James. I have heard no complaints about it.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Do you believe, either one of you, that the
    Corps would have any issue with exempting certain States from
    NEPA when they have their own already high environmental
    standards, such as in California, CEQA, which a lot of times,
    you know, outdoes what NEPA requirements are?
        Mr. James. Congressman, you just threw me a curve ball. I
    hadn't thought about that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
        Mr. James. But I would be happy to talk to you about that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We have seen other examples in different
    agencies, different issues, where they would be willing to let,
    you know, another transportation project since CEQA is at least
    equal or even more restrictive, more----
        Mr. James. Well, most of what----
        Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Than NEPA. So----
        Mr. James. Most of what the Corps does, as I understand it,
    is regulated and driven by the law that the Congress passes.
    And even if the Corps sat here and told you they would be happy
    to give up NEPA in X State and----
        Mr. LaMalfa. And provide for more one-stop shopping, you
    know, where you have two different entities, right.
        Mr. James. Yes, but that may not be their decision to make.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
        Mr. James. The Congress may have already made that decision
    for them is what I am saying.
        Mr. LaMalfa. But the Corps would be willing to go along
    with that conversation, you believe, you know? I guess we can
    send you more laws, but----
        Mr. James. I would be. I would be.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes?
        Mr. James. Yes, I would be.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Because it is all about improving the
    delivery of projects in cost and time, and no need for
    duplicate effort. Yes. OK.
        Mr. James. It is worth exploring. Yes, sir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir. All right. I know my time is already
    up. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
        Mr. Stanton. Chairwoman?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Stanton, you are next.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
    this hearing. Thank you to the outstanding witnesses. I am a
    former mayor of Phoenix and I have seen the great work that the
    Corps of Engineers has done in my city over many years. I
    recently introduced legislation to create an environmental
    assistance program modeled after other Western States in
    partnership with the Corps of Engineers.
        Can either of the witnesses--can you describe the benefits
    of a Corps environmental infrastructure assistance program,
    especially the benefits of improving existing water and
    wastewater infrastructure projects, before performance and
    reliability are compromised? Please, Major General.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. I mean, I think this year we
    are seeing that firsthand with the damages to the levees I
    mentioned just south of Omaha in between Kansas City. Just to
    do the initial repairs, not to restore the levee, but just to
    do the initial repairs, these are $7, $8, $9 million projects
    just to stop the water from flowing into the farmland.
        Mr. Stanton. There are several projects the Corps is
    involved in along the Salt and Gila River corridors through
    Phoenix. Two of our late great representatives of Arizona,
    Senator McCain and Congressman Pastor, were both champions of
    restoration and development of the Salt River through Phoenix
    and the entire Valley of the Sun. We now call that project,
    that legacy project, Rio Reimagined. It pulls together multiple
    local governments, Tribal authorities, Arizona State
    University, the Corps and others to revitalize over 50 miles of
    important river corridor through the Phoenix region.
        Currently, the Corps has only one Civil Works project
    manager assigned to the Phoenix office of the L.A. district,
    which represents all of Arizona. In my opinion, that is clearly
    not enough. How does the Corps plan to address staffing needs
    so that all Corps projects in the State can move forward in a
    timely and appropriate manner with appropriate staffing levels?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We will go back and look at
    this particular project office. As a general statement, we put
    people where the work is. On this particular set of projects,
    my understanding is that the current suite of projects were
    upland restoration, not necessarily down on the river where we
    can apply our aquatic ecosystem restoration authorities. I also
    understand that we would have to do an additional study of what
    other AER-type projects would be out there. But, sir, the
    workforce would follow the workload.
        Mr. Stanton. Tres Rios is in a Corps project associated
    with Rio Reimagined. It is a project that is partially complete
    but we need the Corps to complete a limited reevaluation
    report, LRR, to raise the section 902 limit and request
    additional appropriations to fund it. What is the status of
    this report and when does the Corps expect it to be completed?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So we require a New Start
    decision, a New Start authority, from Congress before we can
    initiate that general reevaluation report.
        Mr. Stanton. Another important project in Arizona is the
    completion of the Lower Santa Cruz flood control project in
    Pinal County, the fastest growing county in the United States.
    Traditional farming communities like Maricopa, which was
    incorporated in 2003 with a population of approximately 1,000
    residents, is now over 50,000 residents. This growing city sits
    in the middle of a flood plain. Currently, the draft Chief's
    Report is slated to be completed in July 2020 and finalized in
    2021. In order to keep this project on an optimal schedule, our
    aim is to get this project authorized in the 2020 WRDA. Can the
    Corps accelerate the Chief's Report to coincide with the WRDA
    2020 in order to keep the project on schedule?
        General Spellmon. Sir, we want to expedite this study and
    all the remaining studies to make them eligible for WRDA 2020.
    This particular project, we have some additional consultation
    we need to do with some Tribal members in the area, and then we
    will work to expedite the completion of this study.
        Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that. It is not my district but
    it is important to the State of Arizona, and so it is important
    to my district as well.
        Let me turn to the Rio de Flag flood control project in
    Flagstaff. Also not my district but important to the State of
    Arizona. Lieutenant General Semonite visited Flagstaff and
    toured the project in October. After his visit, he stated that
    its completion would be one of his top priorities before the
    end of his term as Chief. It is my understanding that the Los
    Angeles district has requested the remaining $52 million needed
    to complete this project.
        A catastrophic flood will affect more than half of
    Flagstaff's 75,000 residents, including major parts of its
    downtown and Northern Arizona University, and could cause $1
    billion or more in damages. Completion of this project is a top
    priority for the city. Will you support the district's funding
    request to complete this important project in the fiscal year
    2020 workplan?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So this will go forward with
    our recommendation. We will finish PED. We have the dollars to
    finish PED this year, and as you had the commitment from
    General Semonite, we want to finish projects that we start.
        Mr. Stanton. I really appreciate that. I am just about out
    of time, so I will yield back but I have another question about
    Rio Salado Oeste, another very important project to Phoenix. I
    will submit it in writing for the record. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Palmer, you are next.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary James, at
    a hearing in the Oversight Committee last year, I requested a
    list of outstanding feasibility studies by the Corps, and after
    waiting nearly 9 months I received a list of 97 studies. And
    the thing that concerns me about this is that 36 of those
    studies are over 5 years long and still ongoing, as far as I
    can tell; 22 are over 10 years long; 15 are over 16 years long;
    and 4 of them are 20 years older. And there are others that for
    some reason--Morganza down in Louisiana has been being studied
    since 1992 and apparently spent about $75 million on it.
        There are a couple of other studies, questions that I
    raised in that hearing last year--West Shore, which has been
    studied over 40 years, it is not on the list because it is now
    under construction; and the Comite River, there was--since 1983
    they have been studying and building a diversion canal from the
    Comite River over to the Lilly Bayou for flood mitigation in
    the event of a 100-year, 500-year flood, and it is now under
    construction, but only after they had a catastrophic flood
    event.
        Under WRRDA 2014, in an attempt to reduce the time and cost
    of these studies, there were limits put on the Corps of 3 years
    and $3 million. These 5-year and older studies, 36 of them, run
    over $140 million. Are you aware of that?
        Mr. James. I wasn't aware of the number or the amount of
    money. I am aware of the fact that the Corps--that they are
    introducing studies as 3 x 3 x 3, are coming to me for waivers
    more often than I feel we should be doing that. If it is a 3 x
    3 x 3, good. If it is not, don't call it that upfront.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, the law requires that it is 3 years and
    $3 million.
        Mr. James. Sorry?
        Mr. Palmer. The WRRDA that was passed in 2014 requires 3
    years, $3 million. Now, you, in response to a question--and by
    the way, Madam Chairman, 17 of these long-term studies are in
    California and 23 of them are in New York and New Jersey, 8 of
    which are related to Sandy.
        But you responded earlier to a gentleman who asked you a
    question and you said that you are a civil engineer. I worked
    for two international engineering companies prior to running a
    think-tank, and you and I both know that if we run an
    engineering company and we went out for a bid on a project and
    had these kind of results in terms of coming up with a design
    for a plant or a water system for that matter, we would be out
    of business.
        Would you like to respond to that as an engineer?
        Mr. James. I didn't say I like it.
        Mr. Palmer. But I want to know what you are going to do
    about it.
        Mr. James. That is what I work at every day, sir. That is
    what takes up my time. That is what keeps me up at night. I
    came here with the understanding and desire to help the Corps
    change themselves through their processes. If they get the
    money, they get it done. And I am still working on that. As
    long as I stay here, I will continue to work on that.
        Mr. Palmer. Do not take this as an attack against you, sir.
    I appreciate what you are trying to do and I appreciate the
    fact that you are an engineer, because I know you are very
    linear in your thinking and very analytical. But we are facing
    some serious situations around the country right now. We heard
    Representative Bost talk about this. We have heard the
    chairwoman talk about it. And I think some of the issues that
    we are dealing with, it is because the Corps is still studying
    the problem and not doing the project, and that is what
    happened in Louisiana.
        It is going to happen in some other places if the Corps
    keeps studying and doesn't start building. And I am not
    attacking the Corps either. I am just saying there are issues
    out there that we need to address, and instead of someone
    making a career out of a project study, it might be better if
    we start turning some dirt.
        Mr. James. Well, I can read you my opening statement and
    just exactly what you said is in it, and that is how I feel
    about this. I came here--I didn't come here for any other
    reason.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I appreciate that.
        Mr. James. But this is what I am trying to do, sir. And I
    will offer this: any ideas or even invite me over to your
    office just to discuss this, I will be happy to.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I would be happy to go over the list of
    projects with you and I think the Members from California and
    some of these other places that are in harm's way might have
    some interesting----
        Mr. James. I would be more interested in your thoughts
    about the solution rather than seeing the list that hasn't been
    done right. I would be happy to discuss that.
        Mr. Palmer. I would be happy to meet with you about it.
        Madam Chairman, I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
        Mr. Espaillat, you are recognized.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the
    witnesses for their testimony. This is an important opportunity
    to talk about the need to invest in water infrastructure,
    particularly habitat restoration and disaster resiliency. I
    represent half of Manhattan, surrounded by water, the Hudson
    River and the Harlem River, and I want to take a few moments to
    draw your attention to some sites that are incredibly important
    not only to my district but I would say New York City as a
    whole as well as the greater metropolitan area.
        Over the past decades, various work has been done under
    numerous programs to help clean up the Hudson River, restore
    habitat and improve public access to it. The Hudson River now
    has become a playground for sports, recreation, families and
    tourists as well.
        In an urban area as dense as New York City, it is
    critically important that residents have opportunities to
    interact with their natural surroundings. Over the past
    decades, the Army Corps of Engineers has been conducting
    various studies within the harbor and the broader Hudson-
    Raritan Estuary. Many of these include ecosystem restoration
    and fish life buildup as well as resiliency.
        The Corps is finishing up its recommendations, which would
    include nearly two dozen projects throughout the region, and I
    understand the Corps plans to include these projects in the
    next Chief's Report. It is my hope that we are able to get this
    project authorized in the next Water Resources Development Act.
        Furthermore, I want to highlight the importance of the
    ongoing New York City-New Jersey Harbor and coastal storm risk
    management facilities study. Aside from protecting the overall
    area and harbor from storm surge, the study also looks at
    smaller projects to protect individual communities that will be
    impacted by storm surge.
        During Superstorm Sandy, East Harlem was the most
    significantly impacted portion of my district, experiencing
    severe flooding. The bulkhead that protects this neighborhood
    from further flooding is severely damaged and needs to be
    immediately repaired. Furthermore, current city comptroller and
    former Manhattan Borough president Scott Stringer put together
    an ambitious proposal to extend the life of the Harlem River
    shoreline through a number of structural changes and ecosystem
    development which will enhance resiliency.
        I want to also raise two other marsh restoration projects
    in my district, one of which also includes the initial Hudson-
    Raritan Estuary studies. The first is the Inwood Marsh, which
    is just two blocks away from where I live, located in the
    northern tip of Manhattan; and the other one is Swindler Cove,
    just off the Harlem River in northern Manhattan. I believe it
    is within the Corps' ability to do this under your continuing
    authorities, and we want you to recommend them for immediate
    action.
        I would like to ask if you can look into these projects
    under your continuing authorities programs, as I believe they
    will make for restoration of considerable green spaces and
    waterfront access in a part of my district that could use all
    the green space it can get.
        I want to ask, Mr. James or Mr. Spellmon, can you look into
    these items as part of your coastal storm risk management
    studies, the first ones that I mentioned, regarding East Harlem
    and both the New York and New Jersey initiative? Is there
    anything that you are doing now that you could look at
    regarding making our waterfront in Manhattan stronger and more
    resilient in preparation for the next storm?
        And the second question, of course, is can you work on
    these two smaller projects in the northern tip of Manhattan?
        Mr. James. No, sir, the answer to both of those are yes. I
    don't know what kind of engagement there has been with the
    district on any of those three projects, but regardless if
    there has been engagement or not, I think General Spellmon can
    take care of making engagement. He may know if there has been.
        Mr. Espaillat. Well, I look forward to working with you,
    General Spellmon, and these are very important projects for the
    northern tip of Manhattan, East Harlem, New York City and the
    tristate area.
        Thank you so much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
        I now recognize Mr. Westerman to introduce the next Members
    for questions.
        Mr. Westerman [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this
    time I would like to recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity, Madam
    Chairman, for this hearing, and I want to thank our two
    witnesses for being here. Before I forget, I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to insert in the record a validation study
    for Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, dated June 2019, and a
    beach renourishment evaluation report for Carolina Beach, North
    Carolina, dated June 2019. If no objection, I would like to
    insert these for the record.
        Mr. Westerman. Without objection.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, without objection.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary--I am sorry?
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        [The information is on pages 128-129.]
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary and General Spellmon,
    Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, real briefly, both have
    really, really good cost-benefit ratios. We need to have the
    Carolina Beach project included in the Chief's Report for WRDA
    2020. From our standpoint, it looks like that is on time and
    looking good. From your standpoint, I am curious what you
    think.
        General Spellmon. Sir, as you know, both those draft
    reports are out for public review. We will collect up those
    comments by the end of this month and then we will wrap up
    those reports and have them submitted to the administration.
        Mr. Rouzer. And then, of course, Wrightsville Beach needs
    to be included in the Director's Report for WRDA 2020, just to
    keep everything on par, on time. I think you were including
    that particular project in your previous answer, but just want
    to confirm.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I was.
        Mr. Rouzer. North Topsail, Surf City--Secretary James, you
    and I spoke about this some time ago. We had a great
    conversation, and I know you all were looking at including it
    in the workplan last time around. It didn't make it for
    whatever reason, but I want to stress this is a critical New
    Start included, authorized by Congress, and quite frankly had
    that been in place prior to Hurricane Florence, we wouldn't
    have had near the amount of damage there at North Topsail Beach
    that we had as a result of Florence coming through. So I just
    want to highlight that. Any comment either one of you might
    have on that particular project?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So this is certainly also
    eligible for the FY19 supplemental funds. We owe the Secretary
    our recommendations on both projects and investigations by the
    end of this--by the end of this month, and we are going through
    that process now.
        Mr. Rouzer. I thank you. And then the last item I want to
    touch on--and I will be very candid with you, I am quite
    frustrated. In fact, frustrated may not be the word. I have
    been right mad. In fact, it has almost led a Southern Baptist
    to cuss. And that is the Southport no-wake zone, which was
    authorized in 2016. It has taken 3 years, still no answer, and
    my inclination, my instinct is the Corps doesn't want to do it.
        This is not a divisive issue back home. It is unanimous--
    the sheriff's department, the county commissioners, the town of
    Southport, everybody. In fact, last week when I was back home
    for July the 4th, you know, folks want to talk politics, and
    the number one item that was brought up to me was what in the
    world is going on with our proposed wake zone here at
    Southport?
        How do I answer that? Where are we?
        Mr. James. Tell them the letter is on my desk, to you.
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, is that a good letter or a bad letter?
        Mr. James. I think you will quit cussing.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, I can tell you what, if it is a bad
    letter you are going to hear about it. This has been a very,
    very frustrating thing, and I have said this to you privately
    and I will say it publicly. Where is the common sense and where
    is the common courtesy? This should not be complicated. It
    should not be complicated. I don't usually get riled up about
    stuff. I am a pretty even-tempered fellow. But like I said,
    this one has pushed me to the limits because it is just
    nonsensible. It needs to get done. We want this. As my
    colleague, Mr. Graves, said earlier in the hearing, we need you
    to work to get to a yes, not work to get to a no.
        Mr. James. Unfortunately, it was not on my desk for 3
    years, sir. It has been on my desk a very short period of time
    and it will be coming to you with a yes right away.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, sir. That is all I need to know.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back and the Chair now
    recognizes Mrs. Fletcher for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I would like to thank Ranking
    Member Westerman and Chairwoman Napolitano for holding this
    important hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for taking
    the time to testify this morning.
        The Army Corps of Engineers has one of the most critically
    important jobs in the country. Nowhere is that more true than
    in my district, in Texas' Seventh Congressional District, where
    the Army Corps' investment in the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs
    back in the 1940s has been one of the most critical pieces to
    the development of the city of Houston and to our protection
    when it comes to flooding and protecting our infrastructure.
        So we certainly appreciate the work that the Galveston
    district has done in particular, and we know that while the
    Corps often suffers from inadequate budgets when compared to
    the number of authorized projects, it also seems to us that the
    process can be slow-moving even when fully supported by
    Congress. And so I want to talk a little bit about that and the
    concerns that my constituents have for some of the projects.
        Secretary James, I understand you have placed a focus on
    pushing the Corps to operate more efficiently and, as I have
    heard you say, to move dirt faster. That is certainly something
    that we are interested in seeing. And I know that the Houston
    Ship Channel is expecting a Chief's Report soon.
        Given the tremendous economic boom that we have seen in the
    Houston economy and the petrochemical industry as well as the
    increasing size of the ships coming through our port, will you
    agree with me that this is one project where we need to get
    moving dirt as soon as possible?
        Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. I have been to the area. I have seen
    the industry, the commerce there, the need for more
    infrastructure, better infrastructure, and I do agree with you
    100 percent.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. How can we move faster than the
    usual route that could take that project to 2030 or beyond? How
    can we start by dredging by 2021?
        Mr. James. Let General Spellmon talk to that. I think he
    might be more up to date on the schedule. And then I will
    address anything after that.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
        General Spellmon. Congress is helping, as is the
    administration, in helping us move projects from start to
    finish much more rapidly, and I will say that by we are funding
    projects to completion. So the example I like to use here is
    the Herbert Hoover dike in Florida. With incremental funding,
    it took us 13\1/2\ years to get that project to the halfway
    point. This is a cutoff wall for about 54 miles of dike--13\1/
    2\ years to get to the halfway point. Congress and the
    administration made the decision to fully fund the remainder of
    that project. It is only going to take us 3 years to get the
    last 50 percent. So that is one way that Congress and the
    administration is helping us complete projects faster, and you
    can apply that same dynamic to projects like the Houston Ship
    Channel.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And can you tell me--I believe
    the Chief's Report is expected. What can you commit to doing to
    ensure that the Chief's Report is done on time?
        General Spellmon. So on this particular study, ma'am, I
    understand it is a non-Federal sponsor now that wants to take a
    pause on this particular Chief's Report as they want to pursue
    a locally preferred plan to look at two-way traffic for the
    entirety of the ship channel. I am sorry, I don't have those
    dates in front of me, but I can certainly follow up with you on
    the details I have from General Owen.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, I would appreciate that. That
    issue is of great concern to our constituents and to folks
    throughout the entire Houston region. And I think the other
    thing that is a challenge, and I hear it from my constituents
    at townhall meetings and other things: we do have several fully
    authorized and funded projects ready to go, but obviously
    engineering is involved and we want to make the best possible
    decisions and we want to be thorough in the analysis. And I am
    grateful to the Galveston district in particular. I spent time
    just last week with Colonel Vail and several members of the
    staff and am very impressed with the work they are doing.
        But what can we do to move projects faster when there is a
    clear benefit? In addition to fully funding, what else can we
    do to just get these projects moving faster?
        Mr. James. I would say the first thing you do is stay fully
    engaged with whatever district that you are dealing with,
    because sometimes that engagement slips. We are all busy. Most
    of the people that you are talking about being sponsors are
    businessmen; they have plenty to do anyway. But staying engaged
    is one thing.
        The other thing is if there is rights of way or relocations
    of railroads or lines or whatever, that is important, is that
    the sponsors engage those other entities that can really,
    really hold up projects. I mean, that can be a big holdup.
        And then other than that, go and engage the appropriators
    and get the money. That is my guess.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. And I see I have gone over my time. I
    appreciate it. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentlelady yields back and the Chair now
    recognizes Representative Babin for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that
    very much.
        Thank you, both of you witnesses, for being here. And also,
    thank you, Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman, for
    convening this very important hearing on our Nation's water
    resources.
        I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses
    again for being here. And I would be remiss if I did not thank
    you again for your leadership during and after Hurricane Harvey
    to ensure my constituents in Texas' 36th Congressional District
    and the great people in the Greater Houston and coastal Texas
    region are adequately protected from catastrophic natural
    disasters. Unfortunately, the North American rainfall record is
    in my district.
        My congressional district is home to three highly important
    Civil Works projects of great economic benefit to our Nation--a
    project to deepen and widen the Houston Ship Channel currently
    undergoing a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; also a
    federally funded project to deepen and widen the Cedar Bayou
    Navigation Channel; and a federally funded project to deepen
    and widen the Sabine-Neches Waterway, all of these in my
    district.
        I would like to talk to you, ask you Secretary James,
    first: In regards to the Houston Ship Channel, the draft
    National Economic Development, or NED plan, recommends
    improvements and widening for only a portion of the Houston
    Ship Channel through Galveston Bay, Redfish Island, if you are
    familiar with it.
        Houston pilots and private industry have indicated that a
    partial widening, as proposed, will create a bottleneck that
    compromises safety and efficiency throughout the entire system.
    What can Congress do--more importantly, what can I do--to help
    you ensure the Chief's Report reflects the necessary options
    and opportunities to address, safely, the deepening and
    widening of the entire Houston Ship Channel, not just part of
    it, including the long-term maintenance of the locally
    preferred plan?
        Mr. James. Sir, I have visited with the local people that
    are engaging in trying to get that done in Houston. Frankly, I
    agree with them. It does not make much sense to me to dredge
    and widen half of a channel and leave the other half not.
        And furthermore, it does not make sense to me that if we
    are only going to dredge half of it, why we are dredging the
    outer half rather than from the port out.
        Dr. Babin. Right.
        Mr. James. I would be happy to talk to you about this
    further. I have got thoughts about it. And your people have
    visited me more than once, and I would really like for us to
    sit down and talk about this. I do not think the Corps has any
    anti-ship channel thoughts whatsoever. I think it is just the
    way their economics worked out. But I think it ought to be
    looked at.
        Dr. Babin. OK. Well, I am very, very happy to hear you say
    that because we really do need to have a dialogue because it
    just does not make a bit of sense.
        Mr. James. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Well, if you will let us
    know.
        Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. And then would it also be beneficial
    for the Corps to use economics updated from 2016 and 2017 to
    reflect the Federal interest in long-term maintenance? Don't
    you agree with that?
        Mr. James. Yes, sir. I certainly do. I do, as fast as
    things are changing, particularly down there. I do.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you. And then General Spellmon, section
    902 is a policy that limits the construction cost to 120
    percent of the congressionally authorized total project cost.
    However, there have been several examples since award of 2007,
    where Civil Works projects that were federally funded and under
    construction either busted the 902 limit or were so close to
    the limit that construction was expected to stop unless
    Congress authorized an increase to the total project cost.
        A great example is the Savannah Harbor deepening project,
    which required an increase in its total project in award of
    2018. It is my understanding that the Post-Authorization Change
    Report basically, on an economic update, took only 3 months to
    complete under a process that normally takes 12 to 14 months.
        And as we see more and more port and waterway deepening and
    widening projects being federally funded for construction,
    would you commit to expediting any future post-authorization
    economic updates to 3 months to avoid any delays in their
    completion, sir?
        General Spellmon. Sir, every Post-Authorization Change
    Report is different. You have my commitment that we will
    expedite all of these as it becomes necessary.
        Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you so much.
        And then Mr. Secretary, would you commit to expediting
    these reviews as well?
        Mr. James. Yes, sir. I am trying.
        Dr. Babin. All right. Well, I will yield back. That is a
    good affirmative answer there. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
    recognizes Representative Carbajal for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Secretary James and General Spellmon, thank you for being
    here today as we hold our first hearing on the implementation
    of the Water Resources Development Act, also known as WRDA.
        I also want to take this opportunity to thank you and the
    Los Angeles district for the incredible work and support the
    Army Corps provided to reopening the 101 Highway following the
    tragic Montecito debris flow in my district. Thank you for the
    great work that you did.
        As we move forward in developing the next WRDA legislation,
    I want to raise concern on how the benefit-cost ratio is
    calculated, also known as BCR. This was an issue also that was
    raised by my colleague, Representative Lowenthal, previously.
        I have heard from stakeholders in my district about their
    frustration on how funding gets allocated. As you are probably
    aware, construction of the Lower Mission Creek project has been
    authorized since the year 2000 and was later amended in 2007 to
    reflect the cost share between the Federal and non-Federal
    partners.
        Despite the project being shovel-ready and our local
    government having invested over $18 million in non-Federal
    resources, Federal resources have not been made available for
    this project. Currently, the BCR score does not account for the
    environmental benefits.
        In your experience, what are some of the recommendations we
    can look to to move a project like this forward? And two, what
    are the benefits for accounting for environmental impacts in a
    BCR score?
        Mr. James. Sir, I would like to visit with you personally
    offline to discuss BCR, if that would suit you. Generally I do
    not think BCRs are being addressed properly, either. There are
    benefits out there that we are not capturing, particularly in
    less fortunate areas. We are not capturing those benefits to be
    able to offset the cost of doing projects, and therefore, you
    wind up like this, with a low BCR.
        Now, I'm not talking about drumming up benefits or anything
    like that. I am talking about taking a real look at what we
    call benefits and how we rack those benefits against the cost-
    benefit ratio. But I would love to visit with you more.
        Mr. Carbajal. Great. Well, I hope to someday get a letter
    like the one that is on your desk that is going to my
    colleague, Representative Rouzer, as was mentioned earlier,
    because this is a project that has been overstudied for over 30
    years. Stakeholders are all on board. There is no dissent on
    this project. And what is at stake here is real, real flooding
    that could take life and property and pretty much with a huge
    amount of risk.
        So I look forward to talking to you offline. And again, I
    look forward to really making some progress on this important
    issue. So thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
    recognizes Representative Mitchell for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the
    committee allowing me to participate today.
        Gentlemen, as you both know, I am from Michigan, the Great
    Lakes State. I am going to try and transport you to the Great
    Lakes. This time of year it is a great place to be and there is
    no ice, so good news. We only have 5 minutes so I want to
    pursue a couple of questions and hopefully get some brief
    answers and you can talk offline if needed.
        Finally, the Soo locks are underway, the progress on that,
    after being authorized 31 years ago. I suggest to my colleague
    down the way that sometimes patience is a virtue. Hang in
    there.
        It has been approved by the Army Corps after 31 years. It
    is underway in terms of the initial construction. As you all
    know, it is a vital link to commerce, and there were some
    national security concerns because of moving taconite and
    things through the Soo locks.
        I get regular updates from the Detroit district, which I
    really appreciate. It is very helpful. Can you both update me
    what the next steps are and if we are on track in terms of the
    progress for having that become operational? Can you give us an
    update on that, please?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. A general statement: We are on
    track. So just a few updates.
        The design of the upstream channel, sir, that is in
    progress. And we will award that construction contract before
    the end of this fiscal year.
        The designs of the upstream approach walls and the new lock
    chamber, those are also in progress. We will award the upstream
    approach wall construction contract next fiscal year, and we
    have asked for $75.3 million in the President's budget request
    for fiscal year 2020 to advance those efforts. But we are where
    we need to be, sir.
        Mr. Mitchell. And be assured, I have had conversations with
    the White House and the administration about ensuring that that
    funding is part of their request. And we see the assurances, in
    fact, that it will continue to be on the top of their list to
    continue that construction. So if you hear anything otherwise,
    let me know so I can go--not curse, but maybe express my--so I
    think we are in good shape on that.
        Is there anything else here in Congress you need from us to
    support that other than ensuring that appropriation continues
    at the levels you need to move forward?
        General Spellmon. No, sir. We are getting all the support
    that we need from a technical perspective to advance the
    construction in the right sequence.
        Mr. Mitchell. What is the target date in your mind for the
    additional lock to become operational?
        General Spellmon. Sir, I would like to follow up with you
    after that, after here.
        Mr. Mitchell. I suppose. OK. I am happy to schedule that if
    you can.
        Let's move ourselves off to the world of Asian carp and the
    Brandon Road lock project, which is a critical issue for the
    Great Lakes region, for the basin. As you all know, that is the
    last stopping point for the spread of Asian carp into the Great
    Lakes Basin and the damage to the ecosystem that would do.
        Your feasibility study was completed. Can you highlight
    some of the findings that were in the Chief's Report and where
    we plan on moving forward?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So General Semonite did sign
    the Chief's Report, as you know, and that is now with the
    Secretary for the administration's review. Sir, we understand
    the concerns that we are hearing from the field on the cost.
    And there are really two drivers for that.
        First, we have a high contingency--because we are dealing
    with some new technology on these fish barriers. And we are
    confident that we could drive that contingency down as we get
    into preliminary engineering and design. That was the first
    driver.
        The second driver was the addition of the concrete channel
    from the previous report. And we believe that concrete channel
    is important for this particular project because that is what
    is going to provide the best efficacy for these new
    technologies on this particular barrier.
        Mr. Mitchell. I have heard some concerns about the non-
    Federal partner and, frankly, their ability to participate as
    we need them in this. Where I suggested it is being pursued, so
    you know, is whether or not we look at a non-Federal partner to
    be the Great Lakes compact to look at approaching it in that
    manner because there has been some concern whether or not the
    State of Illinois will support the effort.
        Do you guys have any opinion on that?
        Mr. James. I don't think I will give you an opinion on what
    you should do, sir. I can tell you that since before this even
    started in earnest, the State of Illinois, which almost has to
    be the sponsor because it is in that State, et cetera, et
    cetera, has I will not say waffled, but they really cannot make
    up their mind whether they want to engage as the sponsor or
    not.
        For the term that they decided to engage as the sponsor, it
    looked pretty simple to me to have a meeting and all the States
    agree to how much they were going to kick in on it and all
    that. But I hear there is trouble again.
        Mr. Mitchell. Well, we are engaging on that issue, just so
    you know, because it is critically important.
        If we could, one comment. I would like to schedule offline,
    because there is not enough time here to talk about fairly
    historic Great Lakes levels, the impact this is having in terms
    of flooding and some of the flood maps that you folks are
    talking about versus--so that is a longer conversation than 5
    minutes will enable us.
        But if we could schedule in my office, I would like to
    follow up on that because obviously we are seeing some historic
    flooding in the Great Lakes Basin.
        Mr. James. I think you have got a commitment from both of
    us to do that. But I don't know why--I think there are 32 or so
    on this committee. Over half would need to sit down and talk
    about the same thing, flooding.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Mitchell. Well, it at least it applies so at least you
    have a full-time gig right now. So I appreciate your time and
    your collective commitment to serve. Thank you very much. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back. And I would like
    to personally thank the chairwoman for trusting me with
    meaningful work during the committee, and I yield back to the
    chairwoman.
        Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. The Chair recognizes herself,
    and I would like to recognize Ms. E.B. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. And let me
    express my appreciation to both of you for holding this
    hearing. And thanks to the witnesses for being present.
        On this past Monday, I held a bipartisan regional
    roundtable discussion in my district to tackle the critical
    issue of flooding, flood prevention and flood control. We had
    Federal, State, regional, and local stakeholders who
    participated in a rather lively discussion.
        And during the roundtable, it was explained how $100
    billion in flood damage was prevented by spending $2 to $3
    billion annually on a flood control system. And it was clear
    that issues of flooding, flood prevention, and flood control
    must be addressed regionally using cross-functional teams with
    stakeholders at all levels of Government and working together.
        So my question--and let me precede that by saying that we
    have had great cooperation with the Corps in that area. I am
    from Dallas, Texas, not the coastal area of Houston. But how
    can the Corps develop national programs that focus on
    preventing flooding rather than just being reactive and
    responding to flooding? That is one question.
        The second one is: How can the Corps share information on
    flooded areas with navigation technology providers to reroute
    drivers away from flooded roads and highways?
        And the third one, and maybe both of you can address all
    three: Does the Corps have the authority it needs to address
    stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and recharge aquifers?
    I hope I did not overwhelm you with all three questions at one
    time.
        Mr. James. You almost did.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. James. No, ma'am. I will take the ``prevent flooding''
    one. I agree with you 100 percent. One dollar of prevention is
    worth $10 of fixing. And I agree with you 100 percent. Now, the
    only thing that keeps us from doing that is the authorization
    and the appropriation of money, both in the President's budget
    and by the Congress.
        And we realize, and our people, like yourself, out in these
    communities bring to us the reasons we need flood control here.
    We need it. OK? So we realize that the Corps goes back, looks
    at it, but then getting it from there to a product, it is hard,
    and it is getting harder all the time.
        Now, when a storm hits and washes away everything you have
    got, then people are willing to jump in and help you then that
    were not willing to help you prevent that flooding. So that is
    where we are. And we take what money we can get as a Corps of
    Engineers and spread it as thin as we can, although I think
    General Spellmon mentioned just a few minutes ago, we are
    trying to complete projects with what money we get before
    starting another project.
        Now, there is an argument there, whether we ought to be
    doing that or not. So I hope I did not confuse you.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. No.
        General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would only add to what the
    Secretary said, but just, humbly, a little historical
    perspective. I mentioned in my opening statement that the
    Nation is experiencing its wettest year on record, at least
    east of the Mississippi and over 124 years.
        And the Nation, Congress, and the administration have, over
    generations, invested in flood control because if this year's
    event happened 100 years ago, we have had those type of floods,
    and hundreds of people have died. I mean, there are mass graves
    in this country that buried the dead from flood events.
        We had some deaths this year, but not in the hundreds,
    certainly not in the thousands. So now it is getting this
    infrastructure ready for the next generation, and all that we
    are seeing with changes in precipitation and sea level rise.
    And the Corps, we are committed to do our part within all of
    our authorities to advance this infrastructure to get it ready
    for the next generations that follow us.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. My time is
    about out. But what do we have to do to encourage a bit more
    focus on prevention? Does it mean legislative authority?
        Mr. James. On prevention of flooding? I think we have got a
    lot of authorities in general. But on particular projects, they
    have to go through the system. They have to have an
    authorization, and then they have to have the environmental
    work done on it. They have to get a Chief's Report, and
    finally, come back to the Congress for appropriations or be put
    into the President's budget. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. My time is
    expired.
        Mrs. Napolitano. The gentlelady yields back.
        Lots of Members wanted a second run at it, but we do not
    have enough time. And I thank you for your patience.
        Some housekeeping questions. Mr. Secretary, Congress
    directed the Corps to solicit projects and study requests from
    local sponsors and issue a report to Congress through section
    7001 of WRDA. As you know, the 2019 report was 5 months late.
        Can you commit that the 2020 report, under development,
    will be delivered on time in February 2020 to be used to
    formulate WRDA 2020?
        Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. My fault. I will take care of it.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your commitment. And you
    heard it.
        Can you also provide to the subcommittee the following: A
    brief summary of a Chief's Report, eight of them, already
    submitted to Congress for authorization, and any known Post-
    Authorization Change Reports needing congressional action? You
    can provide it for the record.
        Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. You have our commitment we will have
    those ready in time for the next WRDA bill.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your commitment. And thank
    you very much. It has been almost 2\1/2\ hours, and I thank you
    for your patience. And we are now concluding this portion of
    the meeting. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Any additional comments and questions may
    be submitted for the record and they will go to you.
        Now we will proceed to hear from the next panel.
        [Pause]
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for being here. All of you,
    welcome. Thank you for your patience. You heard there was quite
    a bit of interest in the Army Corps testimony.
        For panel 2 we have Mr. Rob Innis, Sparrows Point,
    Maryland, plant manager, LafargeHolcim, on behalf of the
    Waterways Council. We have Mr. Chad Berginnis, executive
    director, Association of State Floodplain Managers. Then we
    have Mr. Tom Waters, chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage
    District Association.
        Then followed by Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, vice president for
    water conservation, the National Audubon Society. Then we have
    Mr. Derek Brockbank, executive director, American Shore and
    Beach Preservation Association. And finally, Dr. F. Martin
    Ralph, director of the Center for Western Weather and Water
    Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
    And without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
    into the record.
        Mr. Innis, you may proceed.

        TESTIMONY OF ROB INNIS, PLANT MANAGER, SPARROWS POINT,
    MARYLAND, LAFARGEHOLCIM, ON BEHALF OF WATERWAYS COUNCIL, INC.;
      CHAD BERGINNIS, C.F.M., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF
    STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.; TOM WATERS, CHAIRMAN, MISSOURI
     LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION; JULIE HILL-GABRIEL,
        VICE PRESIDENT FOR WATER CONSERVATION, NATIONAL AUDUBON
     SOCIETY; DEREK BROCKBANK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SHORE
    AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION; AND F. MARTIN RALPH, PH.D.,
       DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR WESTERN WEATHER AND WATER EXTREMES,
     SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
                               SAN DIEGO

        Mr. Innis. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
    Westerman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today. My testimony will
    focus on the importance of the inland waterway transportation
    system.
        I currently serve as the plant manager at the Sparrows
    Point slag cement facility in Baltimore, Maryland, for
    LafargeHolcim. LafargeHolcim produces cement, aggregates,
    concrete, and specialty construction solution products used in
    building projects ranging from affordable housing to small
    local projects to the largest, most technically and
    architecturally challenging infrastructure projects.
        We operate in more than 80 countries, with over 80,000
    employees. We currently operate 30 facilities along the river
    system, and in 2018 moved 9.2 million tons by river. If we were
    to move this tonnage by truck, it would equate to 368,000 more
    trucks on the road.
        I am also a board member of the Waterways Council and an
    executive committee member. WCI is a national public
    organization that advocates for the modern, well-maintained
    system of inland waterways and ports. Recently I also became
    chairman of the Inland Waterways Users Board.
        When thinking of the transportation infrastructure, the
    inland waterways system is often overlooked. Our rivers are the
    fourth ``R'' of the critical multimodal system of roads,
    railway, and runways. In 2017, more than 578 million tons
    valued at $220 billion were transported on the inland waterways
    system.
        Of that tonnage, almost 80 million tons were aggregates,
    which is 14 percent of the total tonnage moved along the inland
    waterways system. Some aggregates and cement projects sourced
    from the river that benefits America included the new terminal
    complex at the Louis Armstrong Airport, the Amazon Distribution
    Center in Minneapolis, and the I-90 tollway rebuild from
    Chicago to Milwaukee.
        After only passing two WRDA bills in 14 years, this
    committee, starting in the 113th Congress, made WRDA a
    priority, passing three bills in 6 years. I would like to thank
    the committee for implementing the changes in the WRRDA 2014
    that have significantly accelerated the project delivery in the
    inland waterways system.
        The cost-share change at Olmsted Lock and Dam allowed for
    the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to operate over the last 6
    years at a 25-percent trust fund/75-percent general fund split.
    This cost-share change has also accelerated the operability of
    Olmsted, allowing for over $600 million in annual economic
    benefit to be accrued 4 years ahead of schedule.
        Also enacted in 2014 and taking effect in 2014, the inland
    waterways industry supported a 45-percent tax increase to the
    diesel tax commercial operators pay that is deposited into the
    Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is currently the highest
    Federal fuel tax being paid by any mode of transportation.
        In WRDA 2016, Congress changed the cost-share model,
    refunding the deep draft ports with depths of 45 to 50 feet
    from 50 percent non-Federal sponsor and 50 percent Federal
    Government, to 25 percent non-Federal sponsor to 75 percent
    Federal Government in order to allow the ports to expeditiously
    expand capacity to become post-Panamax-vessel-ready. This is
    necessary to enable our ports to remain competitive on a global
    scale.
        In WRDA 2007, this committee created the Navigation and
    Ecosystem Sustainability Program, NESP, as an innovate effort
    combining two of the Army Corps of Engineers-Civil Works key
    missions, navigation and ecosystem restoration. This program
    was studied for 13 years at a cost of $74 million.
        Upon completion of the feasibility study, the Corps of
    Engineers moved directly to Preconstruction Engineering and
    Design, PED, for 7 years, spending $62 million before being
    abruptly halted. It is discouraging that a project that has
    already seen $136 million and 21 years of time invested was
    halted. Waterways users, including my company, would like to
    see the Corps immediately restart PED. We foresee construction
    funding becoming available soon. However, without PED, NESP
    will not be ready to receive those funds.
        The inland waterways system has a portfolio of more than 15
    high-priority inland navigation projects either under
    construction or awaiting construction. At the current rate,
    many of these projects will not even begin construction for the
    next 20 years.
        By conforming the cost-share of the Inland Waterways Trust
    Fund to the same formula that was approved for the deep draft
    ports in WRDA 2016, this committee's actions would allow the
    navigation capital program to remain operating at or above a
    $400 million level achieved since the cost-share change at
    Olmsted, and accelerate project delivery on the portfolio of
    the critical inland waterways projects.
        As you move forward with WRDA 2020 and any potential
    infrastructure bill, I encourage you to consider this proposal
    to adjust the cost-share for the construction of inland
    waterways infrastructure projects. This is an important change
    that will help advance our Nation's competitiveness and keep
    America leading at the top.
        That concludes my testimony, Madam Chair. Thank you for
    giving me the opportunity to be here today, and I would be
    happy to respond to any questions you or other committee
    members have.
        [Mr. Innis' prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows Point,
         Maryland, Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways Council, Inc.
        Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the topic
    of ``Water Resources Development Acts: Status of Implementation and
    Assessing Future Needs.'' I believe that my comments today will offer
    an evaluation of policy changes implemented from past Water Resources
    Development Acts (WRDA) that have proven beneficial to the inland
    waterways system and its users, and I will also recommend an important
    policy change for the modernization of our Nation's inland waterways
    transportation system.
        I currently serve as the Plant Manager of the Sparrows Point slag
    cement facility in Baltimore, Maryland for LafargeHolcim. LafargeHolcim
    is the leading global building material and solutions company serving
    masons, builders, architects, engineers, and major construction
    companies around the world. We operate in more than 80 countries with
    over 80,000 employees. LafargeHolcim produces cement, aggregates,
    concrete, and specialty construction solutions products used in
    building projects ranging from affordable housing and small, local
    projects to the largest, most technically and architecturally
    challenging infrastructure projects. We currently operate 30 facilities
    along the river system, and in 2018, moved 9.2 million tons by river.
    If we were to move this tonnage by truck, it would equate to 368,000
    more trucks on our roads. We use nearly all of the 12,000 miles of
    commercially navigable waterways in the U.S., ship on all five of the
    Great Lakes, load barges out of 10 states, and deliver to 25 states, as
    well as to Canada. We directly employ over 7,000 people in the United
    States and supply products to businesses and government that support
    many more jobs throughout the United States. I am a member of the Board
    of Directors and Executive Committee of Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI).
    WCI is the national public policy organization that advocates for a
    modern and well-maintained system of inland waterways and ports.
    Recently, I also became Chairman of the Inland Waterways Users Board,
    and I serve on the Michigan Port Advisory Board.
                                The Fourth ``R''
        When thinking about transportation infrastructure, the inland
    waterways system is often overlooked. In actuality, our Rivers are the
    fourth ``R'' of a critical multimodal system of Roads, Rail, and
    Runways. In 2017, more than 578 million tons valued at $220 billion
    were transported on the inland waterways system. Of that tonnage,
    almost 80 million tons were aggregates, which is 14 percent of the
    total tonnage moved along the inland waterways system. Some aggregate
    and cement projects sourced from the river that Americans benefit from
    include the new terminal complex at Louis Armstrong New Orleans
    International Airport, Amazon's Distribution Center in Minneapolis, and
    the I-90 tollway rebuild from Chicago to Milwaukee.
                   Recent Successful Policy Changes in WRDAs
        After only passing two WRDA bills in 14 years, this Committee,
    starting in the 113th Congress, made WRDA a priority, passing three
    bills in six years. I would like to thank this Committee for
    implementing changes in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
    (WRRDA) of 2014 that have significantly accelerated project delivery on
    the inland waterways system. A cost-share change at Olmsted Locks and
    Dam allowed for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to operate over the
    last six years at about a 25 percent Trust Fund /75 percent General
    Fund split. This cost-share change also accelerated the operability of
    Olmsted, allowing for $600 million in annual national economic benefits
    to be accrued four years ahead of schedule.
        Also enacted in 2014 and taking effect in 2015, the inland
    waterways industry supported a 45 percent increase to the diesel fuel
    tax commercial operators pay that is deposited into the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund. This is currently the highest federal fuel tax
    being paid by any transportation mode.
        In the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, Congress changed
    the cost-share model for funding construction of deep draft ports with
    depths of 45 to 50 feet from 50 percent non-federal sponsor and 50
    percent federal government, to 25 percent non-federal sponsor and 75
    percent federal government in order to allow ports to expeditiously
    expand capacity to become post-panamax-vessel-ready. This was necessary
    to enable our ports to remain competitive on a global scale.
    Inland Projects Authorized in WRDA
        In WRDA 2007, this Committee created the Navigation and Ecosystem
    Sustainability Program (NESP), an innovative effort combining two Army
    Corps of Engineers-Civil Works' key missions, navigation and ecosystem
    restoration. This program was studied for 13 years at a cost of $74
    million. Upon completion of the feasibility study, the Corps of
    Engineers moved directly to Preconstruction Engineering and Design
    (PED) for seven years, spending $62 million before being abruptly
    halted. In 2016, the Assistant Secretary of the Army-Civil Works
    ordered more studies--an Economic Re-evaluation Report (ERR) before PED
    could continue to move forward. That ERR is set to be completed in
    August of this year, but it is still discouraging that there was a
    restudy of a project that has already seen $136 million and 21 years of
    time invested. Waterways users, including my company, would like to see
    the Corps immediately restart PED following this ERR completion. We
    foresee construction funding becoming available as soon as FY 2023.
    However, without PED, NESP won't be ready to receive those funds. We
    are discouraged by this delay and note that projects recently
    authorized are already receiving PED.
        For example, WRDA 2016 authorized the Upper Ohio Navigation Project
    for $2.7 billion. This project has received PED funding the last two
    fiscal years. Also, WRDA 2018 authorized the Three Rivers project for
    $180.3 million, and that project received PED funding last fiscal year.
             Modernizing the Inland Waterways Transportation System
        The inland waterways system has a portfolio of more than 15 high
    priority inland navigation projects either under construction or
    awaiting construction. At the current rate, many of these projects will
    not even begin construction in the next 20 years. By conforming the
    cost-share with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to the same formula
    that was approved for deep-draft ports in WRDA 2016, this Committee's
    action would allow for the inland navigation capital program to remain
    operating at or above a $400 million level achieved since the cost-
    share change at Olmsted, and accelerate project delivery on that
    portfolio of critical inland waterways projects.
        As you move forward with WRDA 2020 and any potential infrastructure
    bill, I encourage you to consider this proposal to adjust the cost-
    share for construction of inland waterways infrastructure projects.
    This important change will help advance our Nation's competitiveness
    and keep America as the leading and most dependable source of goods and
    materials. I'm happy to share additional information with Members and
    your staff.
        That concludes my testimony, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me
    the opportunity to be here today, and I will be happy to respond to any
    questions you or the other Committee Members may have.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Innis.
        Mr. Berginnis, you are next.
        Mr. Berginnis. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Napolitano and
    Ranking Member Westerman. I am Chad Berginnis, executive
    director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and I
    am honored to be here today.
        As we contemplate the most recent round of flooding and the
    damages that have been caused in the Central U.S., in our
    coastal areas, and even as the result of the failure or near
    failure of flood control structures like Oroville Dam, we must
    recognize that as a Nation, our current approach is being
    outpaced by rising seas, more intense rainfall events, and
    skyrocketing flood damages.
        Our members are on the front lines of this battle for a
    decade, and we have advocated for sensible policies to reduce
    flood damages and recognize natural functions of flood plains.
        Our written testimony contains over 20 recommendations, and
    we would like to highlight a few of those today.
        First, we need a coherent flood management policy to
    complement our flood control efforts. Among those identified in
    our testimony, three critical ones are making room for our
    rivers and setting levees and other flood control structures
    back, harnessing the benefits of natural infrastructure, and
    using nonstructural measures wherever possible, whenever and
    wherever structural measures are contemplated.
        Throughout the Corps program's guidance, there is a
    systematic bias towards structural projects and against
    nonstructural projects. We must ensure that Federal programs
    like Public Law 84-99 not only require the analysis of such
    options but establish a preference for them.
        Second, guidance documents like principles and guidelines
    that steer solutions toward those that maximize national
    economic development need to be replaced by guidance that
    prioritizes national economic resiliency and sustainability.
        We need to complete national studies, such as those
    authorized under section 2032 of the 2007 WRDA, which analyzes
    the Nation's vulnerability to flooding.
        We must also ensure that regional studies that are being
    done for such areas, such as the Southeast and gulf coast and
    even those that are called for on the Missouri, are fully
    inclusive of all flood loss reduction tools, including
    nonstructural.
        Third, we believe that there should be organizational
    changes in the Corps that unlocks the massive knowledge and
    expertise of its staff for the benefits of the Corps itself and
    all communities by making technical assistance a top priority.
        Today's reality is that the Corps employees cannot even
    lead local workshops without some specific project to pay for
    it. There were lots of comments earlier today about how the
    Corps can leverage the expertise, especially in small and rural
    communities. This is one way to do that.
        Internally within the Corps, there are Centers of Expertise
    like the National Nonstructural Committee, whose role is to
    advise both internal customers and Corps districts, but also
    communities and the general public. But these are so under-
    resourced that they can serve neither very well.
        This also means that we leverage the good research and
    development that is being done by the Corps and ensure that it
    is adopted throughout the agency and disseminated to the
    public.
        For example, the Engineering with Nature Initiative uses
    natural processes and systems in concert with engineered
    systems to produce a more diverse array of economic,
    environmental, and social benefits.
        ASFPM hopes that it is adopted widely within the Corps.
        In a unique public-private partnership with ASFPM and FM
    Approvals, the National Flood Barrier Testing and Certification
    Program helps develop and use consensus standards for flood
    abatement products.
        But in the 5 years since the standard has been in
    existence, we have yet to see the Corps include the standards
    in its policies, procedures, or contracts for flood fighting
    materials agencywide. We note that some of the flood fighting
    products that were used and failed in Iowa this past spring
    were not certified.
        Finally, we must vastly improve how we communicate flood
    risk. Over the last decade we have seen the creation and
    availability of online databases like the National Inventory of
    Dams and National Levee Database, and these are very promising
    developments. But they are missing critical information.
        None is more pressing than the information we have chosen
    to withhold from the public, inundation mapping where flood
    control structures are operational or where they fail. Since 9/
    11, this information has been categorized as for official use
    only.
        Yet when we have incidents like the near catastrophic event
    at Oroville Dam in California or the Barker and Addicks
    Reservoirs in Texas, it is unacceptable that tens of thousands
    of people in harm's way are unaware of their flood risk.
        I hope that these observations and recommendations help
    better inform your work on the next WRDA, and I thank you for
    your time.
        [Mr. Berginnis' prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Chad Berginnis, C.F.M., Executive Director,
                 Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.
                                  Introduction
        The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) appreciates
    the opportunity to share observations about the programs of the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and their implementation as part of the
    Committee's oversight.
        The 19,000 members of ASFPM are partners of the Corps, Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies at the
    state and local levels in reducing loss of life and property due to
    flooding. Our 37 state chapters are active within their states and
    often nationally as well. State and local floodplain managers and their
    private sector engineering and floodplain management colleagues
    interact regularly with the Corps at the Headquarters and District
    levels in developing and implementing solutions to flooding challenges.
        Floods are the nation's most frequent and most costly disasters
    every year and the costs to taxpayers continue to increase. While the
    Corps has often successfully engineered structural means of controlling
    flood waters, it is becoming more and more apparent that 1) operation
    and maintenance costs are exceeding the ability of communities to pay
    those costs, which is their obligation; 2) structural projects, while
    necessary in some instances, are expensive: 3) traditional projects can
    inadvertently increase flood hazards upstream, downstream and across
    the river and 4) nonstructural projects can often offer a less
    expensive, more sustainable and affordable means of reducing flood
    hazards.
        To meet today's challenges of riverine and coastal flooding in an
    era of more frequent and severe storms, sea level rise, and
    skyrocketing disaster costs, it is important that the Corps take a
    broad, comprehensive and watershed-based view of overall flood risk
    management. To encourage enhanced effectiveness in addressing cost
    considerations, the need to protect lives and property, and recognize
    the multiple beneficial functions of the natural floodplain, ASFPM
    would like to discuss several areas where improvement is needed. We
    will address:

          Strategic Direction
          Flood Risk Management
          Levee and Dam Risk Management
          Public Law 84-99 program
          Principles and Guidelines
                              Strategic Direction
    ``The current trajectory of funding water resources projects is not
    sustainable.''

        This was the take-home message at the 2012 USACE Strategic
    Leadership Conference attended by ASFPM as well as several other Corps
    partners. In remarks made by senior Corps leadership--with which ASFPM
    is in agreement--when you look long term, the Corps must change how it
    is doing business. An increased focus on collaboration and problem
    solving with partners will be necessary as will making smarter,
    strategic investments in infrastructure. Given the increasing cost of
    operations and maintenance, funding for new starts and other projects
    is being proportionately reduced. Simply put, as a nation, we cannot
    afford to keep doing business as we have in the past. More frequent and
    intense disasters are making current approaches too costly or rendering
    them ineffective.
        A more recent troubling trend is that more and more project funding
    is coming by way of supplemental appropriations after disasters. Such a
    piecemeal approach is nearly impossible to plan for and creates a lot
    of frustration at the state and local level.
        The Corps is uniquely positioned, with Congressional support, to
    help transform itself and take a different, much more collaborative
    approach. Rare among agencies, the Corps allocates significant
    resources for research and development through entities like the
    Institute for Water Resources, and has a long history of expertise in
    all aspects of flood-loss reduction--both structural and nonstructural.
    Centers of expertise such as the USACE National Nonstructural
    Floodproofing Committee focus on measures to reduce the consequences of
    flooding versus reducing the probability of flooding. The successful
    Silver Jackets program is putting the Corps into a new ``convener''
    role. Initiatives like Engineering with Nature and the USACE
    partnership with ASFPM in the National Flood Barrier Testing and
    Certification Program [https://nationalfloodbarrier.org/] are forging
    new paths, leveraging new technologies and approaches to tackle long-
    standing flood problems.
    Technical Assistance
        Technical assistance should be seen as a cornerstone of Corps
    operations and activities. A significantly enhanced role of technical
    assistance and broad-based problem solving/planning for watershed wide
    and nonstructural solutions would more effectively deliver federal
    expertise at the local level. However, it is still nearly impossible to
    leverage Corps expertise on more of an ad-hoc basis, not associated
    with a particular Corps project. While Silver Jackets has helped this
    at the state level somewhat, it is a sad reality that Corps expertise
    is rarely available at the local level unless there is an active
    project. Other federal agencies dealing with flooding issues such as
    FEMA, NRCS, and the USGS have staff available through their disaster
    cadres, capacity building programs at the state level, national call
    centers, or distributed staff throughout the U.S. Each is a different
    model for providing federal resources at the local level. Given that
    the Corps has 45 districts throughout the United States, the basic
    infrastructure exists to provide a much better technical-assistance
    role than it currently provides. By having a more robust technical-
    assistance role at the district level that is not project related, the
    research, expertise and knowledge of the Corps could be made much more
    widely available.
        The Floodplain Management Services (FPMS) [https://
    www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Public-Services/Flood-Plain-Management-
    Services/] program (authorized as a continuing authority under Section
    206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act) theoretically addresses this need
    and has provided valuable and timely services in identification of
    flood risks and flood damage. The program enables the Corps to support
    state, regional and local priorities in addressing flood risks through
    collaboration and cooperation by developing location-specific flood
    data, which can be used to reduce overall flood risks. Like FPMS, the
    Planning Assistance to States (PAS) program was also authorized to
    provide valuable and timely services in identification of flood risks
    and flood damage. This program also allows for any effort or service
    pertaining to the planning for water and related resources of a
    drainage basin or larger region of a state, for which the Corps of
    Engineers has expertise. These programs have been shown to provide
    significant benefits for a relatively small investment. By providing
    Corps expertise, these programs assist states and communities to make
    better informed decisions and to engage in more comprehensive
    consideration of their flood risk and the various options for reducing
    the hazard. These can be structural, nonstructural or a combination of
    the two and can often lead to less expensive and more sustainable
    solutions.
        However, FPMS and PAS must be better managed as national programs.
    While our data is anecdotal, it appears that these two programs are not
    evenly nor consistently administered throughout the country. Certain
    Corps Districts have high expertise and capability with these programs
    and others do not. We know thorough our work with the Corps that there
    do not seem to be mechanisms or processes to comprehensively identify,
    collect, review and prioritize requests for FPMS/PAS services, review
    projects completed, and adjust program metrics in any consistent
    manner. ASFPM believes the demand for these programs significantly
    exceeds available resources. All Corps Districts should have the level
    of capability as do those that regularly use FPMS and PAS. Another
    issue is that the Corps tends to ``projectize'' these services versus
    making the technical assistance more broadly and widely available.
        Technical assistance is especially important after flood disasters.
    Given the current structure and focus of the Corps--most post-disaster
    work has been focused on immediate response missions related to
    infrastructure and public works and flood response activities (flood
    fighting) and repair/rehabilitation work. However, given the Corps
    expertise and assets, they can also be brought to bear in providing
    technical assistance and problem-solving expertise. For example, post-
    Sandy, many of the affected areas have a critical need to understand
    the range of different nonstructural flood mitigation options available
    to them, however, this has been done only haphazardly in the past.

          Develop a significantly more robust and ongoing non-
    project related technical-assistance role for the Corps at the district
    level, either through FPMS or a new authority. The FPMS and PAS
    programs should be authorized at least $50 million each.

        The Corps can play a lead role in a model where the federal
    government provides incentives to undertake sustainable solutions,
    where it provides the technical know-how and expertise to solve a
    flooding problem, or where it provides data and information to enable
    states and communities to make better decisions.
    Research & Development
        The Research and Development function of the Corps has several
    promising initiatives and programs, but as we have seen with other R&D
    initiatives across the federal government, the difficulty lies in
    widespread implementation of these initiatives into an agency's
    operations.
        The first of these is the Engineering with Nature (EWN) [https://
    ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/index.html] initiative that is the intentional
    alignment of natural and engineering processes to efficiently and
    sustainably deliver economic, environmental and social benefits through
    collaboration. It incorporates the use of natural processes to maximize
    project benefits. ASFPM is very supportive of this initiative and is
    encouraged by its results and implementation strategy. The 2018-2022
    EWN strategic plan properly focuses on expanding implementation.
    However, given the traction we have seen with other initiatives such as
    the nonstructural flood mitigation, we are concerned about its ultimate
    success.

          Congress should set policy on decision making that will
    result in natural infrastructure being a preferred alternative due to
    its multi-benefit approach
          The Corps should commit to fully supporting the
    operationalization of the EWN initiative throughout the agency.

        The second of these is the National Flood Barrier Testing and
    Certification Program (NFBTCP) [https://nationalfloodbarrier.org/]. A
    partnership among ASFPM, FM Approvals and the Corps (through the
    Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)), the NFBTC Program is
    a unique public-private partnership, which resulted in the development
    of the ANSI 2510 standard and where commercial flood abatement products
    (i.e., perimeter flood barriers and flood mitigation pumps) are tested
    against that standard. The purpose of this program is to provide an
    unbiased process of evaluating products in terms of resistance to water
    forces, material properties and consistency of product manufacturing.
    Manufacturers pay for the cost of testing and certification and the
    public benefits from having flood abatement products that meet
    standards. While the European Union has recently adopted the ANSI 2510
    standard, we have yet to have it adopted officially in the United
    States. This program and the Corps' participation in it aligns with
    Section 3022 of the 2014 WRRDA encouraging the Corps to use durable and
    sustainable materials and resistant construction techniques to resist
    hazards due to a major disaster, and aligns with Director Dalton's
    embrace of new technologies.
        We must ensure the ERDC water testing facility is capable of
    testing products being demanded by the marketplace. Currently, the
    facility is only capable of testing perimeter barriers to a height of 4
    feet, yet manufacturers are making products that would protect to
    heights of 8-10 feet or more. The current facility is in need of a
    significant upgrade and/or replacement and ASFPM would be most
    supportive of such an effort.
    Planning and the Use of Nonstructural Flood Risk Reduction Measures
        Overall, ASFPM is concerned about the lack of nonstructural, flood-
    risk reduction measures as part of the projects that the Corps is
    implementing. While the agency has the authority to implement a full
    array of nonstructural measures, today we are seeing very few of these
    measures being implemented. Yet these measures have been identified in
    community hazard mitigation plans and other planning documents. It
    seems that if a project has not gone through a formal Corps planning
    process then it does not formally exist. Better coordination between
    the Corps and existing community plans, which have proliferated over
    the past 20 years (largely as a result of the Disaster Mitigation Act
    of 2000) is essential. As we note later in this testimony,
    nonstructural, flood-risk reduction measures have an inherent
    disadvantage in most Corps program whether it be through PL 84-99 or as
    a result of the Principles and Guidelines. Yet, the array of adaptation
    techniques that coastal and inland communities will need to take
    advantage of will have to include nonstructural measures or measures
    that can include a combination of both. For example, relocating from a
    highly flood-prone area is a very popular measure and will be
    increasingly important in the future. ASFPM encourages the Corps to
    identify and remove systemic biases against nonstructural, flood-risk
    reduction measures and elevate the status of such measures
    strategically.
        ASFPM supports the recent request by Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Civil Works R.D. James that Congress provide authority for the
    Corps to conduct a study of the Missouri River levees as part of a
    system-wide study that would look as reservoir operations and all
    levees to evaluate how the systems should be managed, (especially
    whether levees should be rebuilt, moved back to reduce erosion and
    provide conveyance or removed and see if other mitigation options
    employed like buyouts or elevation of buildings, which would be more
    effective and less costly). One emerging trend we have observed
    nationally that might have applicability on any Missouri River system
    study, for example, is concern over the flood control--including large
    reservoir releases--and how we might make changes in the USACE water
    control manuals for flood operations to reflect new conditions such as
    more intense storms.
                             Flood-Risk Management
        The Corps' Flood Risk Management Program was established in 2006.
    The program's mission is to increase capabilities across all aspects of
    the agency to improve decisions made internally and externally that
    affect the nation's flood risk. It implements this mission through
    several activities including technical assistance, project planning and
    construction, promotion of nonstructural flood risk reduction, flood
    fighting, post flood disaster support, and assessing potential climate
    change impacts and consideration of adaptation measures. Operationally,
    we would like to share our observations and suggestions for
    improvement.
        ASFPM believes that overall the Silver Jackets program has proven
    to be successful and should continue with maximum flexibility to
    address individual state's needs and issues. There have been many
    benefits to the Corps, and states, tribes, and local governments from
    the Silver Jackets program including better coordination and
    understanding of the various programs and agencies involved in
    comprehensive flood-risk management, identification and coordination of
    resources, and development and undertaking of collaborative projects.
    It is important; however, that all Silver Jackets POCs from the Corps
    embrace the role and vision of the program.
        As mentioned above, the Corps is a partner in the NFBTC Program.
    One step to facilitate the recognition and adoption of the standard
    would be for the Flood Risk Management Program--through the National
    Flood Fight Material Center--to require the standard in future
    contracts when purchasing flood fighting materials (there are several
    manufacturers that now have certified products). While we have had
    promising talks with Director of Civil Works Dalton and Chief Delp in
    the Rock Island District, we are concerned about support of the program
    and use of the standard operationally within the Corps' Flood Risk
    Management program overall given our lack of progress to date.

          Encourage the adoption of and operational use of the ANSI
    2510 standard by the USACE for flood abatement products

        The center of expertise for the Corps for nonstructural flood-risk
    reduction rests with the National Nonstructural Committee within the
    Planning Community of Practice. While we are encouraged after a brief
    dissolution and reconstitution of the NNC the past couple of years,
    that there is at least some interest in maintaining this function
    within the Corps, we continue to be alarmed about its significant lack
    of human resources, the stove-piping of the committee (within the
    Planning Division) and agency headquarters support/champion.
                          Levee & Dam Risk Management
        ASFPM has developed positions on structural flood control including
    the position that levees should never be seen as the only flood
    mitigation tool, but part of a mix of tools that include nonstructural
    measures like buyouts, building elevations and flood proofing, as well
    as levee setback or realignment, designed overflow spillways in levees
    and floodways, such as those on the lower Mississippi River that
    provide ``room for rivers.'' Furthermore, all levees and other flood
    control structures must be designed for future conditions that can be
    expected during the life expectancy of the structure. If the levee has
    a 50-year life, it must be able to handle the design flood expected in
    50 years. All structural projects can result in adverse impacts. It is
    important that the Corps examines and enforces requirements to prevent
    or mitigate any adverse impacts (social, economic, environmental) from
    construction, repair and rehabilitation of structural projects, prior
    to or concurrent with the construction of projects.
        As we reflect back on past levee related policies, we are reminded
    of the many recommendations from the Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain
    Management into the 21st Century Report of the Interagency Floodplain
    Management Review Committee [https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
    collection/p266001coll1/id/2471/] led by General Gerald Galloway after
    the 1993 Mississippi River floods. One recommendation never enacted was
    a new law to define the responsibilities of federal, state and local
    governments, including the levee districts that build and maintain
    locally-funded levees.
        Despite enormous public investment in flood ``control'' structures,
    that spending has been outpaced by development in risky areas and
    development in the watershed that increases runoff and flooding, and by
    the gradual deterioration of the protection provided by those
    structures. As the public grows to recognize the risks associated with
    levees, communities are working to evaluate the various actions they
    can take in response to those risks: levees can be repaired and
    improved or set back from the river to relieve pressure and erosion on
    the levee; homes, businesses and infrastructure at risk can be
    relocated to reduce risk and restore floodplain function. Waters can be
    detained upstream or adjacent to the stream by re-opening areas closed
    to flood storage and conveyance, such as Napa, California did. And
    measures can be combined to achieve the most effective results with
    scarce public dollars, with a particular eye to reducing the long-term
    operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for communities and taxpayers.

          Congress and the Corps should adopt policies for new or
    reconstruction of levees that encourage levees are set back from the
    water's edge to preserve riparian areas, reduce erosion and scour,
    reduce flood levels and flooding risks, and to allow natural floodplain
    ecosystems to better serve their natural functions.

        We have entered an era of levee ``triage''--the process of
    prioritizing federal response to flood risks associated with levees and
    rationing scarce federal taxpayer dollars on multiple-objective risk
    reduction projects that may include floodplain restoration,
    reconfiguration of structural systems, and combinations of approaches
    to make the best use of limited public resources.
        Generally speaking, any new federal taxpayer funding program for
    flood risks associated with levees should be reserved for the top
    performers (communities and regions) that have demonstrated nonfederal
    leadership in the identification and reduction of flood risk associated
    with levees. Projects need to address those risks by leveraging more
    fully state and local authorities over land use, infrastructure
    protection, development standards and robust building codes.
    Additionally, eligibility for a new levee risk management fund should
    require that nonfederal partners take specific steps to address flood
    risk associated with levees in the following ways:

        1.  Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program;
        2.  Adopt a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Action Plan that
    includes emergency action and planning for residual risk areas
    associated with all levees and residual risk areas in their
    jurisdiction, including post-flood recovery and resiliency;
        3.  Prevent the construction of critical facilities in areas
    subject to inundation in the 0.2%-chance floodplain, and require that
    all existing CFs be protected, accessible and operable in the 0.2%-
    chance flood;
        4.  Evaluate the full array of nonstructural measures to reduce
    risk, implement effective nonstructural measures in combination with
    any structural measures that are selected, and adopt standards to
    prevent any post-project increase of risk (including probability and
    consequences), prior to any commitment of public funds toward levee
    work;
        5.  Demonstrate binding and guaranteed financial capacity and
    commitment to long-term operations and maintenance, rehabilitation and
    management of all levee structures and system components in the
    community's jurisdiction;
        6.  Adopt short- and long-range flood risk reduction planning in
    residual risk areas as part of the community's mitigation, development
    and land use planning;
        7.  Communicate with property owners in residual risk areas,
    including spillway easement areas, to notify them of their risk, advise
    them of the availability of flood insurance, update them on emergency
    action plans, report on levee operations and maintenance over the past
    year, and for other public notification and engagement activities; and
        8.  Consideration of flood insurance behind levees either through
    individual policies or with a community-wide policy. The rate should be
    commensurate with the risk (higher levee protection, lower cost
    policies).

        ASFPM would like to note some positive developments in recent years
    regarding levee and dam risk management. The first of those has been
    the development of and public access to the National Levee Database
    (NLD) [https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/#/] and National Inventory of
    Dams (NID) [https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=105:1]. ASFPM was
    pleased to see the opening of the NLD for public access in 2018 (this
    follows the public access to NID, which occurred in 2015). This is an
    important evolution in the levee risk management to ensure the public
    has access to essential information regarding these flood-risk
    management structures. According NLD, there are nearly 30,000 miles of
    levees with over 46,000 levee structures having an average age of 55
    years.
        Another positive development was the Corps' new policy [https://
    www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/
    EngineerCirculars/EC_1110-2-6074.pdf?ver=2018-01-22-100438-250] on
    Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) and required inundation mapping (EC 1110-
    2-6074). This policy standardizes inundation mapping and establishes
    inundation mapping requirements for dams and levees. In theory, having
    inundation mapping available to the public can help avoid debacles like
    those we witnessed around Barker and Addicks Reservoirs post-Harvey
    when thousands of homes in inundation areas of those structures were
    impacted. Had local land use planners, property owners and others been
    aware of these risks, steps could have been taken to reduce that risk.
    However, the new EAP policy includes the following statement: EAP maps
    are considered sensitive data and must be marked For Official Use Only
    according to AR 380-5 and DoDM 5200.01. In other words, inundation maps
    associated with EAPs are not publically available. Why would we be
    withholding this vital information on flood risk?
        The answer seems to be policy artifacts post 9/11 that neither the
    Corps (DoD) nor FEMA (DHS) are willing to overcome. The Technical
    Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC), a congressionally-authorized advisory
    committee helping FEMA oversee the nation's flood mapping program, in
    its 2016 report National Flood Mapping Program [https://www.fema.gov/
    media-library-data/1474555532007-c063547f6f48026feb
    68c4bcfc41169d/TMAC_2016_National_Flood_Mapping_Program_Review_
    Updated.pdf] Review, identified a legacy DHS policy through its
    Security Classification Guide for the Protection of Critical
    Infrastructure and Key Resources, which listed dam failure inundation
    maps as ``For Official Use Only.'' However, this policy conflicts the
    National Flood Mapping Program requirements that such areas be provided
    on Flood Insurance Rate Maps and on publically-available databases such
    as NLD and NID. As noted in the report, a Virginia law passed in 2008
    essentially requires that all inundation mapping developed for state-
    regulated dams be made available to communities and the public. This
    has now been implemented for a decade without issues and state
    officials there believe in supporting wider public availability of
    these data. More recently, when speaking to agency officials, there has
    been a mistaken belief that this issue had been dealt with. It is clear
    to ASFPM that it has not and the unwillingness of agencies to act on it
    demands congressional intervention.

          Congress should mandate that inundation mapping developed
    by the federal government and/or associated with federal programs for
    dams and levees be made publically available.

        Let's not have a recurrence of the Oroville dam situation from a
    couple years ago where a quarter million people were told to evacuate
    because the dam's integrity was threatened, and none of them even knew
    they would be inundated if the dam were to fail. This is a critical
    public safety issue that must be addressed.
        Moving from an inventory to a program to address the safety of
    levees and to get a handle on the funding needed to ensure the safety
    of levees is not a simple process. Evaluating how safe a levee is can
    be easier if actual engineering plans exist and there is a record of
    the operation and maintenance of that levee. Unfortunately, many of the
    non-federally built levees have neither good plans nor O&M records.
    Engineers can do a field evaluation of a levee that includes a visual
    inspection, but that does not tell us what the material is inside the
    levee to determine if it will withstand flood levels at a design flood
    or a larger flood. It is also questionable if the Corps should conduct
    evaluations beyond visual for non-federal levees using taxpayer funds.
        All the above evaluations are complicated because so many
    nonfederal levees are simply dirt piled up to keep water from farm
    fields, with more dirt added to the levee over time to make it higher,
    especially when housing or other development occurred behind the levee.
    Just because such a levee has not failed over the years does not mean
    it will not fail in the next flood. Requiring levee owners to perform
    an analysis of the levee to determine its adequacy and to develop a
    plan to properly operate and maintain the levee cannot be done by the
    Corps because the federal government does not have land use authority.
    States do, but many states to not regulate, or do not have adequate
    regulations to ensure levees are adequate.
        As a nation, we know little about the condition or risks associated
    with levees outside the Corps portfolio. Managing risks associated with
    levees in the United States will require diligence and cooperation
    among all levels of government, private sector and the public. Further,
    the national program must be integrated into and work seamlessly with
    other flood-risk management efforts through other agencies. That is why
    the implementation of the National Levee Safety Program is urgently
    needed. ASFPM participated in the multi-year effort to develop
    recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program culminating in a
    report [http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/
    p16021coll2/id/444] with 20 recommendations made in 2009. The 2014
    WRRDA [https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ121/PLAW-113publ121.pdf]
    first authorized the program, which was subsequently reauthorized in
    America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 through federal fiscal year
    2023. Among other things, this program will:

        1.  Establish comprehensive national levee safety guidelines for
    uniform use by all federal, state, tribal and local agencies (which
    would also provide for adaptation to local conditions);
        2.  Require better coordination and use of consistent standards and
    guidelines among federal agencies;
        3.  Establish a hazards classification system for levees;
        4.  Assist states, communities and levee owners in developing levee
    safety program including identifying and reducing flood risks
    associated with levees;
        5.  Focus on educating the public of risks living in leveed areas;
    and
        6.  Establish a levee rehabilitation program that is integrated
    with ongoing community hazard mitigation programs/plans and requires a
    practical floodplain management plan to address adverse impacts of
    flooding in leveed areas.

        ASFPM is pleased to see that finally, the House passed ``minibus''
    spending bill, H.R. 2740, included increased funding for the National
    Levee Safety Program. While it does not fund the program at its full
    authorization of $79 million, it does provide $18 million.

          ASFPM recommends full implementation of the National
    Levee Safety Program and ensures that national levee safety guidelines
    fully account for future flood conditions based on the levee's
    anticipated service life (as opposed to design life) and suggests
    appropriate land-use standards to manage the intensification of risk
    behind levees.
          Activate the National Levee Safety Committee (NLSC) of
    federal agencies, state and local stakeholders, professional
    associations, and experts as directed in WRRDA 2014 to assist the
    secretary to develop consistent guidance for levee siting, design,
    construction, operating and management standards, to enhance levee
    performance, set appropriate protection levels, and to build-in
    resilience and adaptability for existing and future levee-based
    systems, (e.g., freeboard, spillways, setbacks, etc.).

        An effective National Levee Safety Program would mandate or
    incentivize states to have levee safety programs. This could be done by
    providing federal taxpayer funding to repair levees on some cost
    sharing basis, but it should have provisions indicating the funding
    will only be available in states with adequate levee safety programs
    where the state can regularly inspect levees and has the authority to
    order repairs or removal of inadequate levees so that people and
    businesses behind the levee do not have a false sense of security that
    the levee will protect them. The authorized Corps Levee Safety programs
    needs to be implemented with these provision included.
        We want to point out one recommendation contained in the 2009
    National Levee Safety Program report that was not implemented in the
    2014 WRRDA, but that ASFPM still fully supports: A requirement for the
    purchase of risk-based flood insurance in leveed areas to reduce
    economic loss, flood damage, and increase understanding of communities
    and individuals that levees do not eliminate risk from flooding. Had
    such a requirement been in place, the effects from this year's flooding
    in the Midwest, especially where levees overtopped and failed, would
    have been far less consequential.
        It has come to light in recent years that many levees on the
    Mississippi River have been raised above their authorized height. The
    problem with that is the higher levees at one point in the river will
    result in more flooding across the river or upstream and downstream of
    that higher levee because the water has to go somewhere. This can lead
    to ``leapfrog levee,'' where levee owners on the other side of the
    river then raise their levee higher, and the cycle continues.

          ASFPM urges strong continued federal oversight of levees
    to maintain levees at authorized levels. This should be done by the
    Corps or FEMA, and it must be adequately enforced.

        We were pleased to see that ASA R.D. James and Deputy Commanding
    General for Civil and Emergency Operations Maj. Gen. Scott Spellman
    understand the issue. Spellman indicated that changes to any one levee
    on the system could cause more problems downstream.
        One final note regarding the High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation
    Program--ASFPM strongly supports the floodplain management planning
    requirement to obtain funding and integration of the dam rehabilitation
    with other mitigation efforts. We believe that such plans must be
    practical and implementable so that those impacted better understand
    flood risk and can take steps to mitigate against the residual risk.
                           Adjustments to P.L. 84-99
        P.L. 84-99, the Corps' disaster assistance authority, is
    legislatively built on language that was first adopted in 1941. In
    recent WRDAs, we have generally seen only incremental changes, while at
    the same time costs of flood disasters are increasing dramatically,
    while we are recognizing our overall approaches to flood-risk
    management require substantial new direction. As an example, P.L. 84-99
    provides by far the most generous cost-sharing formula of all the
    Corps' activities, to assist in repair and rehabilitation of disaster-
    damaged levees and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects. In
    many cases the repairs are coming at high federal taxpayer expense and
    are being repeated over and over without serious review because current
    policy constrains or bars the Corps from studying and recommending
    changes (and makes even the consideration of nonstructural approaches
    subject to a non-federal sponsor's consent).
        Under P.L. 84-99, the Chief of Engineers, acting for the Secretary
    of the Army, is authorized to undertake activities including disaster
    preparedness, advance measures, emergency operations (flood response
    and post flood response), rehabilitation of flood control works
    threatened or destroyed by flood, protection or repair of federally
    authorized shore protective works threatened or damaged by coastal
    storm, and provisions of emergency water due to drought or contaminated
    source. P.L. 84-99, which is the principle Corps program to repair and
    rehabilitate, incorporates a significant bias against nonstructural and
    integrated approaches (combining structural and nonstructural
    approaches) to rehabilitation and repair of flood control works (FCWs).
    ASFPM understands that Engineering Regulation 500-1-1, which is the
    operational guidance for P.L. 84-99, has been on-again-off-again
    process of being under consideration for updating for several years.
    ASFPM believes that it is essential for the program to incorporate a
    much greater focus on nonstructural approaches.
        The Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) provides for
    inspections of FCWs, the rehabilitation of damaged FCWs, and the
    rehabilitation of federally-authorized and constructed hurricane or
    shore protection projects. Any eligible FCW that was damaged by water,
    wind or wave action due to a storm is eligible for repair under RIP,
    either at 100% or 80% federal taxpayer cost. RIP assistance is
    available to federally- and non-federally built FCWs. Operation and
    maintenance is the responsibility of the local sponsor, and so long as
    there is proper and timely maintenance, the FCW can be included in the
    program. Currently, the following FCWs can be included, provided they
    meet the eligibility inspections:

        1.  Federally-authorized and constructed hurricane or shore
    protection projects (HSPPs).
        2.  Federally-constructed, locally maintained levees and
    floodwalls.
        3.  Non-federally constructed, locally-maintained levees and
    floodwalls that provide a minimum of a 10-year level of protection with
    2 feet of freeboard to an urban area, or a minimum of a five-year level
    of protection with 1 foot of freeboard to an agricultural area.
        4.  Federally-constructed, locally-maintained flood control
    channels.
        5.  Non-federally constructed, locally-maintained flood control
    channels that provide a minimum of a 10-year level of protection.
    [NOTE: Interior drainage channels within the protected area of a levee
    system are not flood control channels.]
        6.  Pump stations integral to FCW.
        7.  Federally-constructed, locally-maintained flood control dams.
        8.  Non-federally constructed, locally-maintained flood control
    dams.

        This is a very broad range of infrastructure for which the Corps
    takes responsibility after declared disasters, much of which is
    provided through supplemental appropriations through the Flood Control
    and Coastal Emergencies account. An unfortunate side effect of the
    current eligibility standards is that non-federal entities responsible
    for operations, maintenance and repairs are driven to defer maintenance
    until after the system is damaged by a flood event. P.L. 84-99
    eligibility needs to be modified to assure that any federal investment
    in levee work targets structures that pose the greatest public safety
    risk, and incentivizes responsible nonfederal actions in levee
    operations, maintenance and repair.

          Conform this program's cost-sharing with other flood-
    damage reduction programs to reduce federal disaster costs, reduce
    risks and support greater use of comprehensive flood-risk management
    and nonstructural approaches.

        Since this program provides significant federal taxpayer dollars
    for repair and rehabilitation of levees and dams for which local
    entities have signed operation and maintenance agreements, it seems
    entirely appropriate to associate a set of requirements to be met by
    those entities in order to qualify for federal assistance. ASFPM
    recommends that eligibility for P.L. 84-99 be available only after the
    following steps have been taken:

          The entity responsible for operation, maintenance and
    repair (OM&R) has adopted and demonstrated compliance with an approved
    OM&R plan.
          Responsible entity must communicate annually with
    property owners in residual risk areas, including dam or levee failure
    and spillway easement areas, to notify them of their risk, update them
    on emergency action plans, report on levee operations and maintenance
    over the past year, and for other public notification and engagement
    activities.
          Responsible entity must demonstrate binding and
    guaranteed financial capacity and commitment to long-term operations
    and maintenance, rehabilitation, and management of all levee structures
    and system components in the community's jurisdiction;
          Jurisdictions in residual risk areas must:
            Participate in the NFIP,
            Adopt a FEMA approved hazard mitigation action plan
    that includes emergency action and planning for residual risk areas
    associated with all levees and residual risk areas in their
    jurisdiction, including flood-fighting, post-flood recovery and
    resiliency, and
            Prevent wherever possible the construction of new
    critical facilities (CFs) in areas subject to inundation in the 0.2%-
    chance floodplain, and require that all new and existing CFs be
    protected, accessible and operable in the 0.2%-chance flood.

        P.L. 84-99's treatment of nonstructural options is limited. ER-500-
    1-1 indicates:

            Under P.L. 84-99, the Chief of Engineers is authorized, when
            requested by the non-federal public sponsor, to implement
            nonstructural alternatives (NSAs) to the rehabilitation,
            repair, or restoration of flood control works damaged by floods
            or coastal storms. The option of implementing an NSA project
            (NSAP) in lieu of a structural repair or restoration is
            available only to non-federal public sponsors of FCWs eligible
            for Rehabilitation Assistance in accordance with this
            regulation, and only upon the written request of such non-
            federal public sponsors.

        Unfortunately, this is consistent with the underlying statutory
    language, first adopted in WRDA 1996. The result? Little or no
    consideration of nonstructural measures, even when such measures could
    be more cost-effective, and more consistent with the Corps' re-released
    Environmental Operating Principles and subsequent policy guidance from
    Corps leadership.
        The reality is that funded work should evaluate the full array of
    nonstructural measures to reduce risk, implement effective
    nonstructural measures in combination with any structural measures that
    are selected, and adopt standards to prevent any post-project increase
    of risk (both probability and consequences), prior to any commitment of
    public funds toward levee work. Since nonstructural options are only
    considered on an ``as requested basis,'' the requirement that the
    repair or rehabilitation approach be the ``least cost to the
    government'' alternative cannot logically be met because in the vast
    majority of the cases, not all alternatives are being evaluated. We can
    no longer afford to ignore possibly less expensive nonstructural
    alternatives. Specific modifications needed include:

          For every project, explicitly require consideration of
    realigning or setting back levee segments, and integrating setback
    levees to the fullest practicable extent in any federally-funded levee
    work, including repairs under P.L. 84-99.

        Levee setbacks improve public safety and environmental management
    and help account for and mitigate current and future uncertainties and
    reduce the risk of failures as well as improve floodplain and natural
    ecological functions.
        In Sec. 1160 of WRDA 2018 Congress added realignment as a potential
    P.L. 84-99 rehabilitation option, but, again, has left this up to local
    sponsors whether even to consider. We specifically urge removing the
    present constraint requiring the Chief of Engineers to obtain a
    sponsor's consent to study or recommend such alternative actions. We
    would also urge that funding be made available to conduct such
    alternative analyses wherever appropriate, particularly in any
    situation with a history of repetitive P.L. 84-99 repairs. This
    important modification to P.L. 84-99 can help reduce ``pinch-points''
    in levee systems and bridge crossings that are often damaged or fail in
    repeated flood events, resulting in continued property loss, economic
    disruption and federal spending on repairs and disaster payouts. In
    cases of repeated levee failures or where existing levee alignments
    create significant pinch points or other risks, the Chief of Engineers
    should be able to initiate consideration of options to reduce long-term
    risks and repair costs.

          Congress and the Corps should remove bias towards
    structural projects and against nonstructural projects.

        This includes consideration of nonstructural measures in every
    instance and not solely at the request of the sponsor; removal of
    funding caps for nonstructural measures; reconsider the present policy
    which requires local sponsor to provide all lands easements, rights of
    way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRDs) for nonstructural projects
    to allow federal funding for lands for nonstructural project
    rehabilitations; provide greater equivalency in repairs to
    nonstructural measures after a subsequent flood event; and requirement
    for consideration of benefits and costs over the long term, which
    should recognize and incorporate the non-commercial and societal
    benefits of nonstructural and nature-based design approaches in P.L.
    84-99. Other ASPFM recommendations include:

          Including a provision for expedient buyouts of structures
    and land under P.L. 84-99. Due to the existing bias against
    nonstructural measures, this is not now currently feasible. However,
    these should be pursued with the same expediency as levee repairs just
    after a flood has occurred, versus through the normal project
    development process.
          Requiring the Corps to identify and report on frequency
    and losses associated with repetitive loss levees and other P.L. 84-99-
    supported flood control works.
          Requiring a full suite of flood-risk mitigation options
    (including relocation or realignments, setbacks and nonstructural
    approaches to reduce costs and risks) for P.L. 84-99 assistance
    (similar to NFIP and Stafford Act repetitive loss mitigation).

        Consideration should be given to reducing federal subsidies in
    P.L.84-99 as the repetitive costs and disaster assistance claims rise.
               Revision of USACE Principles and Guidelines (P&G)
        Federal activities and Corps investments in water resources and
    flood-control projects have been guided by a process that has remained
    largely unchanged for 30 years, despite a growing record of disastrous
    floods. The first set of ``Principles and Standards'' was issued in
    September 1973 to guide the preparation of river basin plans and to
    evaluate federal water projects. Following a few attempts to revise
    those initial standards, the currently utilized principles and
    guidelines went into effect in March 1983. Since then, the national
    experience with flood disasters has identified the need to update
    federal policy and practice to reflect the many lessons learned and
    advancements in data, information and practice.
        Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA
    2007) called for revision to the 1983 Principles and Guidelines (P&G)
    for use in the formulation, evaluation and implementation of water
    resources and flood control projects. WRDA 2007 further required that
    revised principles and guidelines consider and address the following:

        1.  The use of best available economic principles and analytical
    techniques, including techniques in risk and uncertainty analysis.
        2.  The assessment and incorporation of public safety in the
    formulation of alternatives and recommended plans.
        3.  Assessment methods that reflect the value of projects for low-
    income communities and projects that use nonstructural approaches to
    water resources development and management.
        4.  The assessment and evaluation of the interaction of a project
    with other water resources projects and programs within a region or
    watershed.
        5.  The use of contemporary water resources paradigms, including
    integrated water resources management and adaptive management.
        6.  Evaluation methods that ensure that water resources projects
    are justified by public benefits.

        In general, these requirements represented important goals for
    updating the P&G to respond to changes in the nation's values and
    increasingly looming concerns for our water resources nationally. In
    December 2014, the Obama Administration published an updated set of
    guidelines called the Principles, Requirements and Guidelines, which
    some federal agencies have implemented, but since the FY 2015
    Consolidated Appropriations legislation, the Corps has been barred from
    implementing the revised P&G, or to make much in the way of needed
    changes in approaches or technical aspects of project planning. While
    Congress had some questions about the specific proposed revisions, we
    believe that an updating of project planning and evaluation procedures
    continues to be a strong current and future need to respond to present
    and changing priorities.
        As an example, a major weakness of past benefit-cost analysis for
    water resources projects has been the failure of project planners to
    realistically account for the full life-cycle project costs over
    project lifetimes. This results in a bias for structural projects that
    require significant long-term O&M and rehabilitation costs, whereas
    nonstructural designs often have little or no maintenance, masking the
    true costs of alternatives.

          ASFPM recommends that in developing implementation
    guidance for the P&R, agencies must require a full accounting of long-
    term operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement
    costs be included in benefit-cost analyses for all structural and
    nonstructural projects, and identify which costs are a federal
    responsibility or the responsibility of non-federal sponsors or other
    interests.

        The 1983 P&G require selection of water resources projects that
    maximize net National Economic Development (NED), regardless of total
    costs to taxpayers or the social or environmental impacts.

          ASFPM recommends that the Corps and other agencies
    develop and transition federal planning principles to a National
    Economic Resilience and Sustainability standard instead of the current
    National Economic Development standard to explicitly incorporate the
    values of multiple ecosystem services, including the non-market public
    values provided by the nation's floodplains and ecosystems.

        Floodplain management, public safety and long-term environmental
    quality and sustainability would, in many instances, improve by
    expanding to a resilience/sustainability standard approach.
        Another major concern with water resources projects is that they
    should be designed and analyzed on conditions that will exist at the
    end of their design life. For example, if a levee is designed for a 50-
    year life, the level of protection it will provide must be calculated
    using the hydrology (rainfall and runoff) and sea level rise that can
    be projected for the end of that design life. As extreme rainfalls
    increase and sea level rises, it is foolhardy to not use these future
    conditions in design and BCA analysis. We are currently seeing levees
    that no longer provide the design level of protection because design
    rainfalls have increased from 25-45%, thus the design flood height is
    much higher. In those cases, levee overtopping and failure result in
    excessive damage because development in the ``protected area'' now
    experiences flooding at great depths and damages. Nonstructural options
    like elevation of buildings or relocation would not experience that
    catastrophic damage. All such information needs to be factored in the
    BCA analysis
        During the dozen years since WRDA 2007 was enacted, costly and
    disruptive floods have continued to plague nearly all parts of the
    nation, with the extended Midwest flooding this year, and with major
    Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard flooding, from 2017 and 2018 hurricanes
    providing the latest reminders of the extent of the nation's
    vulnerability. ASFPM believes that the nation can no longer afford to
    continue on its current path of authorizing and funding projects
    through a process that is so heavily biased toward structural
    approaches without comprehensive review of environmental impacts and
    consideration of nonstructural alternatives, and without fully
    leveraging state and local authorities in land use, infrastructure
    maintenance and building codes. While the 1983 P&G needs to be retired
    and replaced by a modern and updated P&G as soon as possible, we note
    also that in Section 2032 of WRDA 2007, Congress had called for a
    report on the nation's vulnerability to flooding, including risk of
    loss of life and property, and the comparative risks faced by different
    regions of the nation. The report was to include the following
    elements:

          An assessment of the extent to which programs in the U.S.
    relating to flooding address flood-risk reduction priorities;
          The extent to which those programs may be encouraging
    development and economic activity in flood-prone areas;
          Recommendations for improving those programs with respect
    to reducing and responding to flood risks; and
          Proposals for implementing the recommendations.

        Unfortunately, while started, this study was never completed, yet
    the need for these analyses and recommendations in this area continues
    and is more urgent now than ever. We urge the Committee to redouble its
    efforts to bring forward these or similar initiatives into focus and
    move them to completion to help guide the nation forward to meet
    critical water resources and flood-related challenges ahead.
        Federal policy initiatives such as the update of P&G and making
    investments through regular and supplemental appropriations that are
    underway could be informed by the findings and recommendations
    anticipated to emerge from this report. We urge Congress to insist on a
    timely completion and delivery of this report.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to share our observations with
    you. We hope you find them helpful in your oversight of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers programs and direction and in consideration of the
    next Water Resources Development Act. If you have any questions, please
    contact ASFPM Executive Director Chad Berginnis.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Berginnis.
        Mr. Tom Waters, you are recognized.
        Mr. Waters. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
    committee, and I want to include staff, too.
        I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony
    regarding the Water Resources Development Act and the Missouri
    River.
        As chairman of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District
    Association, I represent levee and drainage districts,
    businesses, associations, and individuals interested in the
    activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River and its
    tributaries.
        I am honored to have this opportunity to provide comments
    on behalf of the levee association's membership and fellow
    Missourians who have been impacted by this year's flooding.
        I am a seventh-generation farmer. I produce corn, soybeans,
    and wheat in the highly productive bottomlands along the
    Missouri River. I know and understand the importance levees and
    flood control projects play in protecting lives and property in
    my community and communities across the Nation.
        Now, I could read 17 pages of testimony, but I do not think
    you want me to do that, and I do not want to do that. So I
    would rather just make three points this afternoon.
        First, the current Missouri River flooding is not over. The
    reservoirs in the Upper Basin in Montana and North Dakota and
    South Dakota are full. Reservoirs in Kansas have an abundance
    of water, and reservoirs in Missouri and the Osage Basin are
    full as well.
        All three of these basins are going to flow water down the
    Missouri River, and it has got to get to St. Louis by the next
    spring. So that is going to keep the river high.
        We know it is going to be high above flood stage probably
    through the rest of this summer, fall, and into winter, and
    with over 100 levees breached along the Missouri River,
    flooding is going to continue to be a problem.
        It is going to take a long time to recover these levees,
    and it is going to take funding. I hope this committee and
    Congress will act quickly and decisively to push the Corps
    forward with funding and oversight so repairs could be made as
    soon as possible.
        My second point, flood control needs to be the number one
    priority for the Missouri River Reservoir system. This was a
    once highly engineered system, but over the past 20 years, it
    has been used to conduct supersized science experiments for two
    birds and a fish.
        These experiments have decimated the flood control system,
    dike notching, destroyed dikes, revetments, and other
    structures in the river. Open channels and chutes along the
    river have caused the river to flow differently than it used
    to.
        Changes in storage levels, changes in how and why we
    release water, all have changed and taken away from flood
    control in the system. We have to get back to flood control as
    the top priority.
        We have reached the tipping point, and we can no longer
    continue to conduct failed experiment after failed experiment
    at the expense of people's lives and livelihoods, and I said
    ``lives'' because people have died.
        Missouri and Iowa farmland was not meant to be the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service laboratory, and Midwestern farmers no
    longer want to be their guinea pigs.
        It brings me to my third point, and that is that it is not
    just the Missouri River. Flood control infrastructure needs to
    be a national priority. Just like the highway system, the power
    grid, internet, and communications infrastructure, flood
    control infrastructure has been left behind.
        Flooding takes place nearly every day in this country
    somewhere. Just look at your TV. Every morning you can see it
    is flooding somewhere, most recently, day before yesterday,
    here in Washington.
        We spend billions of dollars in flood recovery, and in
    comparison, we spend very little on prevention, and we cannot
    build an umbrella over the coastlines to protect us from
    hurricanes, and we cannot bolt together the fault lines to
    protect us from the earthquakes.
        But we can build flood control infrastructure. Floods do
    not discriminate. They do not choose Democrats over
    Republicans. They do not choose rich over poor, East over West,
    and North over South.
        Flood control is not a partisan issue. It is an issue
    impacting the entire country, and as such, the entire Congress
    should support prioritizing flood control infrastructure as
    money for infrastructure projects is appropriated.
        I thank you, and I ask that my written comments be included
    in the record, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [Mr. Waters' prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage
                              District Association
        Chairman DeFazio and members of the United States House Committee
    on Transportation and Infrastructure:
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
    Water Resources Development Act and the Missouri River. As chairman of
    the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association, I represent levee
    and drainage districts, businesses, associations and individuals
    interested in the activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River
    and its tributaries. I understand the importance of this committee's
    work as it relates to flood control and the protection of human lives
    and property. I am honored to have this opportunity to provide comments
    on behalf of the levee association's membership and fellow Missourians
    who have been impacted by flooding this year.
        I am a seventh generation Missouri farmer. My family farming
    operation produces corn, soybeans, and wheat in the highly productive
    bottomlands along the Missouri River. As president of three local levee
    and drainage districts, I know and understand the importance levees and
    flood control projects play in protecting the lives and property in my
    community and communities across our nation.
        2019 has been a difficult year for people living and working along
    the Missouri River. The Missouri River system was overwhelmed by
    inflows well above any seen before. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    has been tasked with managing record-breaking runoff into the Missouri
    River Flood Control System this year. The extraordinary runoff proved
    to be too much for the Army Engineers to handle and the result was
    major flooding from above Sioux City, Iowa to St. Louis, Missouri,
    along the River and several tributaries.
        My testimony will center around three points. 1) Recent flooding
    and funding needs for levee repairs and flood recovery, 2) Desperately
    needed changes in the management and operations of the Missouri River
    Reservoir System, and 3) Long-term improvements to flood control
    infrastructure across the nation. In addition to these comments, I have
    attached an article, I wrote in April, about this year's flood and the
    Missouri River.
                          2019 Missouri River Flooding
        The 2019 Missouri River Flood is not over. High flows on the
    Missouri River will continue well into summer as the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers continues to release water from the mainstem reservoir system
    in the Upper Missouri River Basin. In addition to the mainstem system,
    reservoirs in Kansas and in the Missouri Osage Basins have an over
    abundant supply of water, which will have to be released during the
    same time period. These releases will combine to keep Missouri River
    flows above flood stage at most locations. Any additional heavy
    rainfall will cause additional flooding.
        The, now infamous, ``Bomb Cyclone'' hitting Nebraska and South
    Dakota early this spring brought snow and heavy rain which overwhelmed
    the Missouri River flood control system. The bomb cyclone was followed
    by a second round of heavy snow and rain later in the spring causing
    even more damage throughout the Missouri River Basin. Levees have been
    overtopped, breached and eroded by the high-water event. Communities
    have been inundated, homes and businesses lost and in rural areas,
    farmers have lost not only their homes, but also their 2018 crops
    stored in flooded bins, their machinery and their livestock. Hopes for
    planting a crop this year have dwindled away as the river continues to
    scour across flooded fields.
        Flooding in the Midwest impacts the entire country. The Missouri
    Department of Transportation closed more than 470 different routes in
    114 counties from April 29 to June 14. Many remained closed today.
    Railroad tracks were washed out and train traffic was stopped and
    disrupted by delays and re-routing. Flooding hindered the movement of
    products through the states of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas with
    impacts across the entire nation. Barge traffic on the Missouri River
    was also disrupted.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The flood control system of levees, which has been weakened by
    years of lack of improvement, has been decimated. The following is a
    list of levees overtopped or breached in the Kansas City, Omaha and St.
    Louis Corps of Engineer Districts:
                       Kansas City District Levee Status
                           federal levees overtopped
    March Event Overtoppings
    MRLS 500-R (KS) Iowa Point Drainage District No. 4 (First Federal Levee
    to overtop since 1993) Doniphan, KS March 21
                       federal levees that have breached:
    MRLS 246-L Brunswick-Dalton Levee District, Chariton County, May 31
                     non-federal levees that have breached:
    March Event Breaches
    Union Township Levee (MO), Holt County, March 16
    Holt County 10 Levee (MO), Holt County, March 16
    Holt County 9 Levee (MO), Holt County, March 18
    Rushville-Sugar Lake Levee, Platte County, March 21
    Platte County #1 Section #1 Tie-Back Levee
    Platte County #1 Section #2 Tie-Back Levee
    Walcott Drainage District #1 Levee, Wyandotte County, KS, March 23
    Corning Levee, Holt County, March 16
    Recent Breaches
    Brunswick Levee. Carroll County, May 23
    DeWitt Levee, Carroll County, May 23
    Mi-De Levee, Carroll County, May 23
    Labadie Section #4 Levee (Intentional), Franklin County, May 22
    Cambridge Levee, Saline County, May 23
    Lower Morrison Bottom Levee, Gasconade County, May 28
    Prison Farm Levee, Cole County, May 28
    Northeastern Saline Levee,
    Saline County Levee, May 28
    Saline County #2 Levee, Saline County, May 28
    Garden of Eden #1 Levee, Chariton County, May 30
    Garden of Eden #2 Levee, Chariton County Levee, May 30
    Garden of Eden #3 Levee, Chariton County May 31
    West Glasgow Levee, Saline County, May 30
    Tri-County Drainage District Levee (Ray, Clay, Jackson Counties) Ray
    County, June 1
    Belcher Lozier Levee
    Reveaux Levee, Callaway County, June 1
    Sugartree Bottom Levee (Intentional), Carroll County, June 1
    Howard County #4 Levee, Howard County June 1
    Howard County #7 Levee, Howard County, June 4
    Levasy Levee (Not in PL84-99 Program) June 1
    Cooper County #1 Levee, Osage County, May 30
    Bonne Femme Levee, Howard County June 1
    Ray-Carroll Levee, Ray/Carroll Counties May 31
    Renz Levee, Callaway County, June 7
    Capitol View Levee, Callaway County, June 7
                    non-federal levees that have overtopped
    March Event Overtoppings
    Canon Levee (MO), Holt County, March 20
    Grape-Bollin-Schwartz Levee (KS), Leavenworth/Atchison Counties, KS,
    March 20
    Bean Lake Levee (MO), Platte County, March 20
    Henry Pohl Levee (KS), Atchison County, KS, March 21
    Kansas Department of Corrections Levee, Leavenworth County, KS, March
    23
    Walcott Drainage District #2 Levee, Wyandotte County, KS, March 23
    Walcott Drainage District #3 Levee, Wyandotte County, KS, March 23
    Recent Overtoppings
    Ray-Carroll Levee Overtopping Stopped with flood fight and intact
    Howard Bend #3 Levee, Section 1
    Cooper County #1 Levee
    Howard County #6 Levee, Howard County, May 23
    Howard County #3 Levee, Section 2, Howard County, May 31
    Howard County #3 Levee, Section 1, Howard County, May 23
    Howard County #2 Levee, Howard County, May 31
    Chamois #1 Levee
    Chamois #2 Levee, Osage County, May 24
    Chamois A-1 Levee
    Diermann Levee, Gasconade County, May 24
    Jacobs Levee, Callaway County, May 24
    Tebbetts East Levee, Callaway County, May 24
    Tuque Creek Levee, Warren County, May 25
    McBaine Levee, Boone County, May 27
    Big Bend Levee, Carroll County, May 29
    Whitman Levee, Chariton, May 29
    Wainwright Levee, Callaway County, June 1
    Malta Bend Levee, Saline County June 1
    Henrietta-Crooked River Levee, Ray County June 1
    Plowboy Levee, Moniteau County, May 24
    Linneman-Weekly Levee, Cooper County, May 23
    Egypt Levee
    Hartsburg #1 Levee
    Hartsburg Levee #2 Levee
    Hartsburg #3 Levee, Boone County May 31
    Mokane Levee
    Steedman Levee
    Holtmeier Levee Association
    2019 Missouri River Flood--March & April Overtopped and Breached Levees

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      2019 Missouri River Flood--May & June Overtopped and Breached Levees

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          Omaha District Levee Status

                                         Levee System Status as of May 31, 2019
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Initial
      Reference         River         Levee System        Last     PL84-99 Program  Previously     # of      Breach
       Location                                          Update     Participation   Overtopped   Breaches   Repaired
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Council        Missouri        L611-614             05/31/19  Federal                   x          3
     Bluffs, IA
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Glenwood, IA   Missouri        L601                 05/31/19  Federal                   x          4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Glenwood, IA   Watkins Ditch   L601-Watkins Ditch   04/04/19  Federal                   x
                                    RB
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fremont        Missouri        L594                 05/31/19  Federal                   x          5
     County, IA
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hamburg, IA    Missouri        L575                 05/31/19  Federal                   x          7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hamburg, IA    Nishnabotna     L561                 04/04/19  Federal                   x
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Atchinson      Missouri        L550                 05/20/19  Federal                   x          7
     County, MO
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Atchinson      Missouri        L536                 04/04/19  Federal                   x          7
     County, MO
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sarpy County,  Missouri        R616-613                       Federal                   x                     1
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sarpy County,  Missouri        R616                 04/04/19  Federal                   x
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sarpy County,  Missouri        R613                 04/04/19  Federal                   x          1
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Otoe County,   Missouri        R573                 04/04/19  Federal                   x
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nemaha         Missouri        R562                 04/04/19  Federal                   x         10
     County, NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Brownville,    Missouri        R548                 04/04/19  Federal                   x
     MO
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rulo, NE       Missouri        R520                 04/04/19  Federal
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sarpy County,  Platte          Western Sarpy        04/04/19  Federal                   x
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clear Creek,   Platte          Clear Creek          04/16/19  Federal                   x          4          2
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Valley, NE     Platte          Union Dike           04/16/19  Non-Federal               x          1          1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ames, NE       Platte          Ames Diking          04/04/19  Non-Federal               x          1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Louisville,    Platte          YMCA Camp Kitaki     04/04/19  Non-Federal               x
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cass County,   Missouri        Lake Wa Con-Da       04/04/19  Non-Federal           Boils
     NE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               St. Louis District Levee Status--Mississippi River
    Breaches
    Brevator Levee
    Winfield Main Levee
    Pike Grain #3 Levee (Intentional)
    Pike Grain #4 Levee
    Kissinger Levee
    Elsberry Levee
    Chouteau Island Levee
    Elm Point Levee
    Kuhs Levee
    Ste. Genevieve #2 Levee (Intentional)
    Winfield Pin Oaks Levee
    Nutwood Levee
    Overtoppings
    Foley Levee
    King's Lake Levee
    Sandy Creek Levee
    Consolidated North County Levee
    Greens Bottom #1 Levee
    Greens Bottom #2 Levee
    Bluffdale Farms Levee
    Robertson Mutual Levee
    Keach Levee
    Hillview Levee
    Schaefer Levee
    Eldred Levee

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Levee Repairs and Recovery
        The Kansas City District Corps of Engineers Emergency Management
    office estimates recovery and levee rehabilitation from this year's
    flood event will be the largest rehabilitation program in their
    district since the great flood of 1993. They expect to receive between
    80 and 90 requests for assistance from levee sponsors. Many of these
    have already been received and more requests continue to come into the
    office as levee sponsors assess damages. Damage will range from loss of
    grass cover from top and side wash to eroded levees and full-blown
    breaches with some systems having multiple breaches.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        USDA is also assessing damages and planning for many requests for
    assistance recovering land damaged by the fast and destructive river
    flows. Assistance for damaged fields, flooded grain bins, lost crops
    and lost livestock will all be a part of the USDA programs to help
    farmers damaged by the flooding. But none of it will be enough to cover
    all the loss and suffering many farmers are facing. Crop insurance
    never covers all the farmer's losses and USDA assistance usually comes
    with some sort of cost-share farmers can find hard to match. The
    agricultural economy has been struggling and during some of the worse
    times for agriculture in recent years, this devastating flood will
    cause some farmers to lose their business. In some cases, farms handed
    down for generations will be lost.
        Congress must act quickly to fund levee repairs. The recovery from
    the most recent flood events prior to this year has been slow and
    painful. Some levees along the Missouri River still had not been fully
    repaired from flooding in 2015, when this year's flood hit. In some
    cases, it has taken 3-4 years to complete the levee rehabilitation
    process. The recovery from this year's event must be handled better.
        At this time, it is difficult to assess flood damage. The
    continuing high flows from upper basin reservoirs are preventing Corps
    of Engineers teams from completing damage assessments. It will take
    time for these teams to be able to do their work and have a good idea
    of the expenses related to the levee repairs. Once this work is
    completed, levee sponsors will need Congress to act quickly to make
    funding available for the repairs. Communities, business, property
    owners and the states economies all depend on levee protection and they
    are depending on Congress to act quickly with enough funding to meet
    their needs.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The number one industry in Missouri is Agriculture. With one-third
    of the grain produced in Missouri coming from the 100-year floodplain,
    the state's economy is directly impacted by flooding and by levee
    breaches left unrepaired. The flow required to flood this highly
    productive land is much less when levees are left unrepaired. Levee
    sponsors rely on Congress to provide the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    the needed funding for levee repairs.
        Delays in funding for repairs hamper an already slow and cumbersome
    process. I fear additional flooding and losses as we wait for levees to
    be repaired along the lower Missouri River. I hope this committee and
    all members of Congress will act quickly and decisively to push the
    Corps forward with funding and oversight to see the repairs are made as
    soon as possible.
                      Missouri River Reservoir Operations
        The Missouri River Flood Control System has been hijacked and it is
    no longer being used to provide flood control as it was designed. For
    over 20 years, the Corps of Engineers has been forced by the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service to manage the system to conduct super-sized
    science experiments for two birds and one fish. The threatened and
    endangered interior least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon.
    These failed experiments have included: changing system storage amounts
    and how water is released, notching dikes, revetments and other
    structures in the river, opening chutes and channels along the river,
    and even causing intentional flooding. The experiments have weakened
    the system's ability to provide flood control and the result has been
    flooding of greater magnitude and frequency.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Flood control must be the number one priority for the management
    and operation of the Missouri River Reservoir System. We have reached a
    tipping point and we can no longer continue to conduct failed
    experiment after failed experiment at the expense of people's lives and
    livelihoods. Missouri and Iowa farmland was not meant to be the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service's laboratory and midwestern farmers no longer
    want to be their guinea pigs.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        After changes in the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual in
    2004, the Corps has been trying to manage and operate the system
    equally for all eight authorized uses for the system. The simple fact
    is all uses are not equal and the system cannot be managed to make them
    equal. The system was built and designed to provide flood control. Like
    anything else, when one uses something for a purpose it was not
    designed for, more often than not it fails. This is true with the
    Missouri River Reservoir System. You cannot put a gallon of water in a
    quart jar and you cannot dismantle the system of dikes and structures,
    open chutes to send water out of the channel, misallocate stored water,
    conduct experiments for fish and birds, and expect to provide flood
    control. The system must be used the way it was designed. It must be
    used for flood control. We have seen what happens when flood control is
    not the top priority for the system. Lives have been ruined, businesses
    lost, and people have died.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Need for Flood Control Infrastructure Improvements
        The decline of our flood control infrastructure is not limited to
    the Missouri River. The lack of emphasis on flood control over the past
    20-plus years and the current inadequate infrastructure must be
    addressed as a national priority. Congress must act together to correct
    the problem.
        Flooding occurs nearly every day somewhere in the United States. In
    his testimony during a recent U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
    Public Works field hearing, Major General Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy
    Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, United States
    Army Corps of Engineers, opened his remarks with a brief review of the
    many places across the country impacted by flooding this year. He said,
    ``At one point, over 300 river gauges indicated a flood stage somewhere
    in the Nation, and there were over 183 reported ice jams on rivers
    across the northern portion of the country.'' He went on to describe
    flooding occurring in Ohio, the Vicksburg Corps District, the Corps'
    Memphis District, North Dakota, Colorado, California, Oregon and of
    course along much of the Missouri River.
        The long list of flooding locations serves to remind us the lack of
    attention to flood control infrastructure over the past several years
    is a national problem, which impacts nearly every corner of the
    country. Floods do not discriminate. They do not choose democrats over
    republicans or vice versa. Floods don't choose rich over poor, north
    over south or east over west. Flood control is not a partisan issue. It
    is an issue impacting the entire country and as such, the entire
    Congress should support prioritizing flood control infrastructure as
    money for infrastructure projects is appropriated.
        In conclusion, this committee needs to remain aware of the ongoing
    flooding along the Missouri River. The flood is not over and the people
    of the Midwest and the River itself will need your leadership, guidance
    and support to recover from this devastating disaster.
        Flood control must be the number one priority for the operation and
    management of the Missouri River. Using the system for fish and bird
    experiments has degraded the effectiveness of the flood control system
    and costs our country billions of dollars.
        There is a nationwide need for improvements to the country's flood
    control infrastructure. Improvements need to start here and now with
    this committee and with Congress. The failure to address the need for
    flood control infrastructure will lead to more flooding of greater
    magnitude and frequency.
        Without flood control transportation and commerce are interrupted,
    sewer and water supply are put at risk, and some of the nation's best
    farmland is left out of production. Without flood control people's
    lives are put at risk and yes, people die. Simply put, without flood
    control, nothing else matters.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments to your
    committee. I look forward to working with each of you to help reduce
    flooding across the nation and provide better protection to the
    American people.

                                   __________
                                   attachment
        Flooding: Where We Are, Where We've Been and Where We Need to Go
    By Tom Waters
    April, 2019

        The flood of 2019, wreaked havoc in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas and
    Nebraska. From Omaha to Kansas City over 100 breaches in levees allowed
    the Missouri River to spread across some of the nation's most
    productive farmland and through Missouri and Iowa communities. In each
    case, levees preformed as designed. However, the volume and velocity of
    the River exceeded the design of the flood control system.
        Heavy snow and rain running into the River caused it to rise to
    record levels. Most of the runoff entered the River below Fort Randall
    Dam. Water running into Lewis and Clark Lake (Gavins Point Dam) had to
    be released through the dam, because the Lewis and Clark Reservoir has
    little to no storage available. It is a regulation dam, which means
    what comes into the lake must be released. Compounding the excessive
    rain and snow event was a breach of the Spencer Dam on the Niobrara
    River in Nebraska, allowing even more water to run into Lewis and Clark
    Lake. The system was overwhelmed and could not handle the amount of
    water being released by reservoir operators working for the US Army
    Corps of Engineers.
        The Bomb Cyclone which brought heavy snow and rain happened quickly
    and did not allow time for thousands of citizens to move grain,
    equipment, property and belongings out of harm's way. The result is
    millions of bushels of grain loss, homes destroyed, livestock losses
    and lives ruined. One farmer I talked to loss his home, his machinery,
    and over half his 2018 crop, which was stored in grain bins. He will
    not be able to plant a crop in 2019, and doubts his bank will loan him
    money to recover and continue to farm in the future. This 5th
    generation farmer is only one example of thousands suffering from the
    lack of flood protection needed to prevent Missouri River flooding.
        For decades, the federal government has focused Missouri River
    Operations on fish and wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
    used the Endangered Species Act as a huge hammer to force the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers to change the way the flood control system is
    operated on the Missouri River, resulting in an incapacitated flood
    control system. The Missouri River is a highly engineered river. In the
    upper basin, above Yankton, South Dakota, the world's largest system of
    dams and reservoirs were built to capture snow melt and spring runoff.
    Below Yankton, levees and smaller lakes and reservoirs provide flood
    protection as water is released from the system above. Sadly, the
    system, as originally designed, was never finished and the Pick-Sloan
    Plan for the Missouri River never reached its intended potential.
        The system was originally built for flood control. Along with flood
    control, engineers designed the lower river to provide navigation to
    move products up and down the river. For decades, the flood control and
    navigation system brought great economic benefits to the Missouri River
    Basin. These two primary purposes also allowed for other benefits to
    develop such as water supply, hydropower, irrigation, water quality
    control, and recreation, which includes fish and wildlife.
        In 1973, things began to change. With the passage of the Endangered
    Species Act the Corps of Engineers began changing structures in the
    river, which were designed to provide for a 300, wide and 9, deep
    channel. The Corps began notching dikes, revetments and other
    structures designed to control the flow of the river and provide flood
    control and navigation in the lower river. The notching continues
    today, 46 years later. Other changes have taken place over the years.
    Drought periods impacted the recreation industry in the upper basin and
    upper basin states began to push for changes in the way reservoir
    levels were managed. This kicked off a period of great contention
    between upper and lower basin states.
        As calls for changes in the Missouri River Master Water Control
    Manual, were made by upper basin states, some environmental groups saw
    an opportunity to take-over the management of the River. They pressed
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get involved. Three threatened
    and endangered species were identified and the power of the endangered
    species act would soon cause a dramatic shift in the way the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers operated the system. Instead of using the highly
    engineered system for flood control and navigation as originally
    designed, the Corps of Engineers found itself dismantling the system
    piece by piece through increased dike notching and conducting
    experiments for the Fish and Wildlife Service. These experiments are
    designed to ``connect the river to the floodplain'' or in more
    understandable terms ``designed to cause flooding along the Missouri
    River''!
        Failed experiment after failed experiment over the past 20-plus
    years has substantially changed the previously highly engineered river.
    Structures which once provided a stable channel have been weakened, and
    in some cases removed. Side channels and chutes have been opened to
    allow the River to flow uncontrolled and cause erosion and scouring.
    Flood control has been diminished and riverboat pilots find it hard to
    navigate the channel, which has become dangerous at many locations. A
    system once used to provide flood control is now being use as a super-
    sized science experiment for two birds and a fish. As a result, we are
    seeing greater floods more often, human lives have been lost and people
    are enduring great suffering. All the while, no scientific evidence can
    be found to show any of the changes have even helped the fish and two
    birds!
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent over 2/3 of a Billion
    Dollars making changes to the River since 2005, in the name of Missouri
    River Fish and Wildlife Recovery. Meanwhile, we continue to see more
    water entering the River at higher velocities. Note the Graph below
    from the Corps of Engineers:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Prior to 1973, the runoff above Sioux City reached the upper decile
    level only three time, while since 1973, runoff has been in the upper
    decile 11 times. Clearly, more water is coming into the system, more
    often.
        Changes must be made! The flood of 2019, can more accurately be
    describe as the flood of 1973 through 2019. Dike notching began in
    1973, the first of many changes to the original river design. In 2004,
    congress approved changes to the Missouri River Master Water Control
    Manual which no longer held flood control as the primary purpose for
    the flood control system. Instead, the Corps is forced to try to
    balance all the purposes of the system to the determent of their
    ability to provide flood protection.
        When one uses something in a way it was not designed to be used it
    often fails. When hooking a tractor to a plow too large for the
    tractor, the tractor may pull it for a short time, but eventually the
    tractor will give out and likely ruin the engine. Trying to put a
    gallon of water into a quart jar only causes a mess on the table top.
    Likewise, using the flood control system for science experiments is
    failing and making a mess of the Missouri River Basin.
        Many want to blame the Corps of Engineers for the recent flooding
    and floods of the past. After all, the Corps operates the flood control
    system. Right? While it is true the Corps operates the system, we will
    do well to remember the Corps of Engineers is the United States Army
    Corps of Engineers. These solider engineers follow orders and those who
    follow orders best rise to the top of the Corps. Colonels do what
    Generals order them to do and Generals do what the Generals above them
    order them to do. We must understand where the orders to conduct
    science experiments with the Missouri River flood control system came
    from.
        Ultimately, the Corps of Engineers' orders come from Congress.
    Congress needs to change the orders! Pressure from well-funded
    environmental groups, over the years, has caused Congress to blindly
    make changes in the way the Missouri River system is operated and
    removed flood control as the system's top priority.
        Flood Control MUST be the top priority for the operation of the
    Missouri River flood control system. Flood control was the original
    purpose for building the system back in 1944. Flood control is even
    more necessary today than it was in 1944. Inflows into the system are
    greater and the system has not been improved to meet the challenges of
    higher flows and greater velocities. The system has been modified to
    reduce flood control rather than improve flood control. The tipping
    point has been reached and people have suffered enough!
        By making flood control again the top priority for the management
    of the system, infrastructure improvements can be made and flooding can
    be reduced--even eliminated. We cannot build an umbrella over the
    coastlines to protect people from hurricanes and we cannot bolt
    together the fault lines to protect people from earthquakes, but we can
    build flood control infrastructure to protect people and property from
    flooding. They do it in Holland and China, and we can do it here in the
    United States. The key is for Congress to make flood control the
    priority.
        Making flood control the top priority for management of the
    Missouri River should be easy for Congress to do. Following flood after
    flood along the Missouri River congress has spent millions upon
    millions of dollars for recovery. Congress needs to spend money up
    front to prevent the damages in the first place. Improving
    infrastructure now can reduce or eliminate the expense of recovery
    later.
        Some will say let's just move everyone and everything out of the
    floodplain and allow the river to run wild. These uneducated scholars
    do not understand the economic value of the farmland found in the
    nation's bottomlands. In Missouri alone, over one third of the crop
    production is located in the fertile river valleys. The highly
    productive soil found adjacent to the nation's rivers makes our country
    strong. A hundred thousand acres of river bottomland can produce enough
    calories to feed over 1 Million people for an entire year. What a waste
    it would be to allow rivers to run wild and destroy such a valuable
    part of our nation's strength.
        Food production makes the United States strong. When we want to put
    pressure on other countries, we use food to encourage them to do the
    right thing. When we want to help other countries, we send them food.
    Food is the strength and leverage we have many other countries only
    wish they had. Protecting our food production in turn protects all
    Americans. Sure, the United States has the strongest military in the
    world, but as a peaceful nation, food is the most powerful tool we can
    use before turning to the use of bullets.
        Following the 1993, and 2011, floods on the Missouri River, the
    greatest recovery expenses were related to agriculture. It only makes
    sense to protect the rich farmland along the River. To do this, flood
    control must be the top priority and the ludicrous practice of
    ``connecting the river to the floodplain'' must stop. Levees and other
    flood control infrastructure must be improved and the system must be
    managed to provide the protection it was designed to provide.
        It took a long time to tear down the once highly designed system
    and it will take time to bring it back to the level of protection it
    once provided. But with Congress designating flood control as the top
    priority, these changes can begin. At the same time, fish and birds can
    survive, a safe water supply can continue, barges can ply the river and
    the other uses can flourish. Making flood control the top priority does
    not mean an end to all other uses and purposes for the River. It simply
    means the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will use the system as
    originally designed to protect human lives and property.
        Meanwhile, the flooding for this year is likely not over. The
    system is primed for more flooding and the Missouri River could reach
    even higher levels at some locations than we saw earlier this year. A
    second storm in the plains of the upper basin dumped more rain and
    snow, all of which must eventually move through the system. The Corps
    of Engineers will have to increase releases to move water from the
    upper basin reservoirs. In addition, The Corps will need to begin
    making releases from reservoirs in Kansas which have been holding water
    back to aid with flooding downstream of Kansas City. The combination of
    releases from Kansas and the Upper Basin will keep the river high
    through the spring and summer. Heavy rains anywhere along the river
    will likely cause additional flooding this year. With over 100 levees
    already breached and communities and property left unprotected, the
    combination of reservoir releases and heavy rainfall this spring or
    summer could bring even more heartache and devastation to the Missouri
    River Basin. This, as recovery begins and the people along the Missouri
    River seek help to put their lives and livelihoods back together.
        The Congressional Delegations in the Midwest cannot do it by
    themselves. It will take the entire Congress to understand and fix the
    problem. The decline of our flood control infrastructure is not limited
    to the Missouri River. Flooding occurs nearly every day somewhere in
    the United States. In his testimony during a recent U.S. Senate
    Committee on Environment and Public Works field hearing, Major General
    Scott A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency
    Operations, United States Army Corps of Engineers, opened his remarks
    with a brief review of the many places across the country impacted by
    flooding this year. He said, ``At one point, over 300 river gauges
    indicated a flood stage somewhere in the Nation, and there were over
    183 reported ice jams on rivers across the northern portion of the
    country.'' He went on to describe flooding occurring in Ohio, the
    Vicksburg Corps District, the Corps' Memphis District, North Dakota,
    Colorado, California, Oregon and of course along much of the Missouri
    River. The long list of flooding locations serves to remind us the lack
    of attention to flood control infrastructure over the past several
    years is a national problem, which impacts nearly every corner of the
    country.
        The lack of emphasis on flood control over the past 20-plus years
    and the current inadequate infrastructure must be addressed as a
    national priority. Congress must act together to correct the problem.
    Floods do not discriminate. They do not choose democrats over
    republicans or vice versa. Floods don't choose rich over poor, north
    over south or east over west. Flood Control is not a partisan issue. It
    is an issue impacting the entire country and as such, the entire
    Congress should support prioritizing flood control first. Without flood
    control, nothing else matters.

    Tom Waters is a seventh-generation farmer and Chairman of the Missouri
    Levee and Drainage District Association. He operates his family farming
    business in the Missouri River bottoms East of Kansas City, Missouri.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Waters.
        Now the Chair recognizes Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel.
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
    Westerman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today.
        I am Julie Hill-Gabriel, the vice president for water
    conservation at the National Audubon Society, and on behalf of
    our more than 1 million members, 23 State offices, and over 400
    independent local chapters, Audubon's mission is to protect
    birds and the places they need for today and tomorrow.
        Just like people, birds need water, and because of that,
    Audubon has made water conservation a core part of our
    conservation strategy. We work in places that are globally
    significant for birds and people, like the Colorado River and
    network of saline lakes in the arid West, the Great Lakes and
    the Mississippi River and its delta, the gulf coast, the
    Delaware River, the Everglades, and the Platte River, among
    many other places.
        And aquatic ecosystems are really the liquid heart of
    America's environment. They provide drinking water for hundreds
    of millions of people while also showing innumerable benefits
    for wildlife and our Nation's economy.
        As we discuss implementation of past Water Resources
    Development Acts and look ahead to future legislation regarding
    water infrastructure, it is critical to prioritize the
    investments in the aquatic ecosystem mission of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers.
        One international model of success for ecosystem
    restoration can be found in America's Everglades. It truly is
    the nonpartisan issue in the State of Florida where you have
    local, State, and Federal decision makers all acknowledging the
    benefits of restoration efforts not only for the wildlife that
    made the Everglades famous, but for addressing issues like the
    toxic blue-green algae blooms, red tide, and seagrass die-outs
    that have plagued Florida's coast in recent years.
        And the economic consequences of these environmental
    catastrophes have truly demonstrated the inextricable link
    between the environment and the economy, and Everglades
    projects are estimated to produce a four-to-one return on
    investment.
        Now, equally important are projects like those along the
    coast of Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta where
    Audubon has owned and managed over 26,000 acres for almost a
    century.
        A recent study by Audubon and our partners show that the
    coast of Louisiana is one of the most important places in the
    world for wildlife habitat, some species having 50 percent of
    their population using the coast for nesting and breeding
    habitat.
        The restoration and protection of the Mississippi River
    Delta is often advanced with WRDA legislation and is essential
    to keeping this important ecosystem from collapse.
        Now, the recent success and momentum of ecosystem
    restoration efforts can largely be credited to the work of this
    committee, getting us back on track. Passing WRDA bills every
    other year has enabled us to see significant progress and see
    some of these ecosystem projects now become a reality.
        In addition to advancing critical ecosystem restoration
    projects, provisions in WRDA 2016 and 2018 present important
    opportunities to incorporate the use of more resilient natural
    infrastructure options, to reduce the impacts of storms,
    flooding or coastal erosion, and to promote reliable water
    supply.
        These can include nature-based options, like restoring sand
    dunes, wetlands, oyster reefs, and coastal forests, and they
    can be used in place of or alongside traditional
    infrastructure, like seawalls, jetties, and levees.
        In 2018, Audubon released a natural infrastructure report
    that highlighted the benefits of a number of projects from
    sediment diversions in Louisiana to living shorelines in
    California and North Carolina, to restoring breakwater oyster
    reef habitat in Florida, and all of these showed the
    significant benefits of this type of infrastructure.
        When looking for options to reduce the impact of storms,
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found
    that across the U.S. coastal wetlands are estimated to provide
    more than $23 billion in storm protection services every year,
    and in watersheds that contain 15 percent wetlands, peak floods
    can be reduced by up to 60 percent.
        Despite the clear statutory language in recent WRDA bills
    directing the Army Corps to consider natural infrastructure
    alternatives, very few of these measures are being implemented.
        More effort is needed to ensure that the Army Corps can
    capture the multiple benefits provided by these measures and to
    require the Corps to conduct a full evaluation of a natural
    infrastructure alternative in each study addressing flood and
    storm damage reduction.
        Audubon stands ready to work with the Army Corps and the
    subcommittee and other partners to find innovative and
    efficient ways to advance water infrastructure and help protect
    birds and the places they need.
        Thank you for allowing me to be here today because we truly
    believe that where birds thrive people prosper.
        [Ms. Hill-Gabriel's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water
                     Conservation, National Audubon Society
        Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be present here today,
    representing the National Audubon Society (Audubon), to discuss the
    status and future needs of Water Resources Development Acts. Audubon's
    mission is to protect birds and the places they need, today, and
    tomorrow. Audubon represents more than one million members and has 462
    affiliated chapters, 22 state offices, and 41 nature centers across the
    country.
        My name is Julie Hill-Gabriel, and I am Audubon's Vice President
    for Water Conservation, based in Washington, DC. I coordinate Audubon's
    water strategy across the United States. Before beginning this new role
    in 2018, I worked in Florida for 11 years as Audubon Florida's Deputy
    Director for policy, leading our Everglades restoration efforts and
    working closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), as
    the federal sponsor for these restoration efforts. We appreciate the
    consistency of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure in passing Water Resources
    Development Acts on a biennial basis since 2014 and the willingness to
    conduct important oversight hearings.
        Protecting waterbird populations is a foundation of the
    establishment of the National Audubon Society. In 1896, Harriet
    Hemenway and Minna B. Hall formed the Massachusetts Audubon Society
    amid outrage over the slaughter of millions of waterbirds, particularly
    egrets and other wading birds who were killed for the harvest of their
    feathers. The first Audubon Societies were formed to tackle the dire
    threats that birds faced from prolific plume hunting, and to obtain
    strong legal protections for birds \1\. By 1898, Audubon Societies were
    established in 14 states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
    Texas, and California. The present-day Audubon began as the National
    Association of Audubon Societies in 1905 as an umbrella organization
    for these state societies. Theodore Roosevelt was an early, strong
    supporter of Audubon and Audubon worked closely with the President to
    establish the first bird sanctuary in Florida, which became the basis
    for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Graham, Frank, Jr. (1990). The Audubon Ark. University of Texas
    Press, Austin, Texas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2018, Audubon celebrated the ``Year of the Bird,'' alongside
    National Geographic, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and more than 180
    other partners, including state agencies, zoos, businesses and
    conservation groups, to mark the 100-year anniversary of the Migratory
    Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As Audubon recognized this centennial and
    marked the progress made since the passage of this landmark
    conservation law, we recommitted our organization to continue the work
    of our founders as we seek to protect birds over the next century.
        With an eye toward this history, Audubon's water strategy focuses
    on protecting and restoring habitat that is crucial to birds' survival.
    Among other places, we focus our efforts in the Arid West through
    conservation around the Colorado River and the network of Saline Lakes,
    the Mississippi River and its Delta, the Great Lakes, the Everglades,
    the Delaware River, the Platte River and the Rio Grande. Audubon works
    to ensure that water conservation projects and programs that benefit
    birds are included in WRDAs. Audubon also works collaboratively with
    the Army Corps in many capacities, including through the Continuing
    Authorities Program, in the Upper Mississippi River Systemic Forest
    Stewardship Plan and through data collection and monitoring. This
    testimony highlights some of these issues that have received attention
    in recent WRDA bills.
      1. Ecosystem Restoration Mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
        The Army Corps has three primary mission areas: navigation, flood
    risk management, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Army Corps
    ecosystem restoration activities seek to restore significant ecosystem
    function, structure, and dynamic processes. Ecosystem restoration
    efforts often involve an examination of the problems contributing to
    the system degradation, and the development of alternative means for
    their solution. Continued commitment of resources to this mission area
    will enable the Army Corps to make progress on critical ecosystem
    restoration efforts like those discussed in more detail below.
    Restoring America's Everglades:
        The Everglades is a unique ecological treasure that provides the
    drinking water for one in three Floridians. As projected population
    growth and impacts from climate change put more pressure on South
    Florida's environment, Everglades restoration is increasingly urgent.
    Clean and sufficient freshwater forms a critical component of Florida's
    tourism economy. Recent toxic blue-green algal blooms, seagrass die-
    offs and outbreaks of red tide have occurred where the alteration of
    the ecosystem limits water management options. Significant economic
    losses have transpired as a result of these water quality and water
    management disasters.
        The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was authorized
    in WRDA 2000 and represents the Army Corps' largest aquatic ecosystem
    restoration initiative to move the right amount of freshwater to the
    right places at the right time. After nearly 20 years of progress and
    bi-partisan support, five major Everglades infrastructure projects were
    recently completed or are expected to be complete by the end of 2020.
        After a devastating flood in 1947, the Central and Southern Florida
    Flood Control Project (C&SF Project) was authorized as part of the
    Flood Control Act of 1948. After the implementation of the C&SF project
    resulted in both periods of drought and flooding and a decline of 90%
    of wading birds in the Everglades \2\, Congress authorized a
    Comprehensive Review Study of the C&SF project in 1992 (Restudy). The
    purpose of the Restudy was to modify the C&SF project to restore the
    Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for other water-
    related needs of the region. The Restudy culminated in CERP, which was
    then authorized by Congress in 2000. Each component of CERP is
    identified by the Army Corps as part of the C&SF project and CERP
    projects are funded under a line item for ``South Florida Ecosystem
    Restoration.'' CERP was broken up into more than 60 components, and
    eight of these were authorized in WRDA 2007, 2014, and 2016. Three
    additional components are in planning stages and expected to have a
    Chief of Engineers Report within the next two years. Because individual
    projects are all included within a single appropriations line item, and
    because CERP itself is an extension of the original C&SF Project, these
    components build upon ongoing construction work and should not be
    considered new construction or new planning starts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Davis, S., and J.C. Ogden. (1994). Everglades: The Ecosystem
    and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, US
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A study conducted by Mather Economics, Measuring the Economic
    Benefits of Everglades Restoration,\3\ demonstrates the potential
    economic benefits from Everglades restoration:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Mather Economics. (2010). Measuring the Economic Benefits of
    Everglades Restoration: An Economic Evaluation of Ecosystem Services
    Affiliated with the World's Largest Ecosystem Restoration Project.
    Mather Economics, 43 Woodstock Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075.

            ``Our analysis strongly suggests that restoration of the
            Everglades as described and planned in [Comprehensive
            Everglades Restoration Plan] will have large economic benefits.
            Our best estimate is that restoration will generate an increase
            in economic welfare of approximately $46.5 billion in net
            present value terms that could range up to $123.9 billion. The
            return on investment, as measured by the benefit-cost ratio,
            assuming a cost of restoration of $11.5 billion, is also high
            and significant, 4.04, which means for every one dollar
            invested in Everglades restoration $4.04 dollars are generated.
            Everglades restoration will also have an incremental impact on
            employment of about 442,000 additional workers over 50 years.
            In addition, the Corps of Engineers estimates there will be
            22,000 jobs created as a result of the actual restoration
            projects. Throughout our analysis, we have taken a very
            conservative approach to estimation. Accordingly our best
            estimates almost surely understate the return on investment of
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Everglades restoration.''

        The Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) that was authorized
    in WRDA 2016, was a culmination of important planning efficiencies. The
    project planned multiple components together to understand their
    interconnected impact, it included more robust technical input from
    stakeholders, and the plan was developed in 18 months, which became a
    model for the Army Corps' 3x3x3 process which requires projects to be
    developed in 3 years, with $3 million, with review by 3 levels Army
    Corps leadership.
        Through one of the most successful examples of the use of authority
    created by Section 203 of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), the non-federal
    sponsor for CERP, the South Florida Water Management District, prepared
    a CEPP Post Authorization Change Report Feasibility Study and Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement and recommended the additional of the
    Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir to the CEPP project. The study
    was determined to be feasible by the Assistant Secretary of the Army
    for Civil Works and was included in WRDA 2018.
        WRDA 2018 Section 1308 directed that construction should commence
    ``only after the Secretary prepares a report that addresses concerns,
    recommendations, and conditions identified by the Secretary,'' allowing
    90 days for completion of that report. While more than six months has
    passed, the report has still not been delivered to Congress.
        The EAA Reservoir will store and clean water from Lake Okeechobee
    and then reroute it south. This has the dual benefit of diminishing
    harmful discharges to the coastal estuaries east and west of Lake
    Okeechobee that fuel algal blooms, and instead deliver clean water to
    Everglades National Park and Florida Bay where it is desperately
    needed.
        Another issue that can impact the benefits that can be achieved
    from Everglades restoration is the need to secure the federal cost-
    share portion of Operation, Maintenance, repair, replacement and
    rehabilitation (OMRR&R) funds for completed Everglades restoration
    projects.
        Per WRDA 2000 section 601(e)(4), the Army Corps and the non-federal
    sponsor are each responsible for 50% of the costs of OMRR&R. ``(4)
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE--Notwithstanding section 528(e)(3) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), the non-
    Federal sponsor shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of
    operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation
    activities authorized under this section.''
        The federal contribution in this context is therefore not a
    reimbursement--it is an obligation under CERP. Funds not received from
    the Army Corps pose a direct impact to the local sponsor and taxpayers,
    since these funds do not come from state appropriations. While it was
    reassuring to see some OMRR&R funding in the FY20 budget, not receiving
    this funding consistently could erode the agreed-upon partnership
    between the Army Corps and the non-federal sponsor and cast unnecessary
    doubt on the ability to gain the needed benefits from future projects.
        Audubon appreciates the consistent support from this committee for
    Everglades restoration and looks forward to working together to build
    upon the momentum of restoration success.
    Addressing Asian Carp in the Great Lakes:
        The Great Lakes ecosystem is another globally important place for
    birds where Audubon focuses its water conservation efforts. The Great
    Lake includes about 20% of the freshwater on Earth and provide a source
    of freshwater for 30 million Americans. One of the greatest ecological
    threats to the health of the Great Lakes is the invasion of invasive
    exotic Asian carp. This species poses a serious threat to the
    ecological health of the Chicago Area Waterways System and the Great
    Lakes, and the people and economies these waters support. Right now,
    Asian carp have already wreaked havoc on the Mississippi and Illinois
    Rivers, outcompeting native fish for food and habitat, and creating a
    safety threat for people who recreate on these waterways. The
    environmental and economic consequences are significant. The Great
    Lakes support a $7 billion fishery; a $16 billion tourism industry;
    waterfowl production areas that support a hunting economy of $2.6
    billion a year; and hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation that
    generates approximately $18 billion a year.
        The Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study-Brandon Road
    Report (GLMRIS-BR) evaluated options to prevent the upstream transfer
    of Asian carp. A Chief of Engineers Report for this project was
    recently signed after encouragement in WRDA 2018, and authorizing this
    project should be a top priority in future WRDA legislation.
        Asian carp are a real threat to the Great Lakes that demand quick
    action. There is no turning back if Asian carp invade the Great Lakes.
    It is much easier to control and prevent Asian carp at one relatively
    small choke point than in five massive lakes. The recommended plan will
    create additional levels of defense to stop Asian carp from migrating
    through the Chicago Area Waterway System.
    Protecting the Delaware River Watershed:
        In the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, (PL
    114-332) that included WRDA 16, the Delaware River Basin Conservation
    Act (DRBCA) created the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program
    (DRBRP) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, clearly affirming the
    national priority of restoring the Delaware River Watershed. The DRPRP
    provides a competitive grant and technical assistance program to
    support on-the-ground work by state and local governments, non-profit
    organizations, and universities.
        The Delaware River Basin Commission is a federal-state compact
    agency tasked with overseeing a unified approach to managing the
    basins' water resources. The Army Corps is the federal representative
    for this commission. Despite the recognition of importance of the
    commission in the DRBCA, full funding for the Army Corps' participation
    has not been appropriated in recent years. In order to advance the
    goals of DRBCA, support for both the DRBRP alongside the DRBC is
    imperative.
        Projects that benefit the Everglades, the Delaware River Watershed
    and the Great Lakes are just a small portion of the many projects and
    programs that advance ecological benefits through WRDA bills. As the
    future needs for WRDA legislation take shape, ecosystem restoration
    must remain on par with other Army Corps mission areas and be
    prioritized. Restoring America's great aquatic ecosystems are
    fundamental for wildlife, the environment and local economies.
               2. Facilitating the Use of Natural Infrastructure:
        In 2018, Audubon released a Natural Infrastructure Report: How
    Natural Infrastructure Can Shape a Resilient Coast for Birds and
    People.\4\ This report demonstrated how federal investment in natural
    infrastructure will help increase preparedness of coastal communities
    and economies, while benefitting fish and wildlife, which also often
    provide a critical foundation for coastal economies. Natural
    infrastructure alternatives can also provide more resilient options for
    inland flood attenuation and water storage in places like the Colorado
    River basin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Audubon Society. (2018). Natural Infrastructure
    Report: How Natural Infrastructure Can Shape a Resilient Coast for
    Birds and People. Retrieved from https://www.audubon.org/sites/default/
    files/audubon_infrastructure_jan192018.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Provisions in WRDA 16 and WRDA 18 present important opportunities
    to incorporate the use of more resilient natural infrastructure options
    to address extreme weather events including flood risk management
    projects and hurricane and storm risk reduction projects.
        WRDA 2016, Section 1184 states:

            In studying the feasibility of projects for flood risk
            management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem
            restoration, the Corps of Engineers (with the consent of the
            nonfederal sponsor) must consider: (1) natural features created
            through physical, geological, biological, and chemical
            processes over time; (2) human-designed, nature-based features
            engineered and constructed to provide risk reduction by acting
            in concert with natural processes; and (3) nonstructural and
            structural measures.

        WRDA 2018, Section 1149 (c) states:

            NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE.--In carrying out a feasibility report
            developed under section 905 of the Water Resources Development
            Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) for a project for flood risk
            management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, the
            Secretary shall consider the use of both traditional and
            natural infrastructure alternatives, alone or in conjunction
            with each other, if those alternatives are practicable.

        Despite these clear statutory directions, the Army Corps often
    screens out natural infrastructure alternatives early in the planning
    process, before their benefits can be fully analyzed. And it is
    extremely rare for the Army Corps to select a natural infrastructure
    alternative when compared with more traditional options to address
    flood and storm risks.
        According to a March 2019 GAO report,\5\ the agency faces
    considerable challenges in developing cost and benefit information for
    some types of natural infrastructure. While the Army Corps may consider
    direct incidental benefits such as improving ecosystems and water
    filtration, they often have difficulty monetizing such benefits.
    Additional information must be gathered in order to ensure that the
    Corps can better account for both indirect and direct natural
    infrastructure benefits and this should be incorporated into their
    benefit-cost analysis. The inability to properly monetize benefits is a
    consistent challenge preventing the Army Corps from selecting more
    natural infrastructure project alternatives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers. Consideration of Project Costs and Benefits in Using
    Natural Coastal Infrastructure and Associate Challenges. (Publication
    No. GAO-19-319). Retrieved from GAO Reports Main Page via GPO Access
    database: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Natural infrastructure alternatives can include nature-based
    systems such as restoring sand dunes, wetlands, oyster reefs and
    coastal forests in place of traditional human-built projects such as
    seawalls, jetties, levees, groins, bulkheads and riprap. This kind of
    ``grey'' infrastructure has traditionally been promoted as the best
    long-term, cost-effective approach to flood management. But natural
    infrastructure has been shown to provide significant, long-term and
    cost-competitive benefits for challenges such as flood reduction. For
    example, research published in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management
    reported that the average construction costs between natural and grey
    infrastructure are similar, but there are lower replacement costs with
    living shorelines, a form of natural infrastructure.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Bilkovic, D. M., Mitchell M., Mason P., and Duhring K. (2016).
    The Role of Living Shorelines as Estuarine Habitat Conservation
    Strategies. Coastal Management. Vol. 44 (3): 161-174.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have also identified several
    flood-reduction and resiliency benefits from a wide array of natural
    infrastructure systems. ``Natural features such as coastal marshes and
    wetlands, dune and beach systems, oyster and coral reefs, mangroves,
    forests, coastal rivers, as well as barrier islands, help minimize the
    impacts of storms, rising sea levels and other extreme events on nearby
    communities and infrastructure.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation. (2018). National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation and NOAA announce new coastal resilience funding. Retrieved
    from https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/national-fish-and-wildlife-
    foundation-and-noaa-announce-new-coastal-resilience-funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wetlands and reefs:
        The significant benefits provided by natural infrastructure have
    been analyzed by the private sector, including the insurance specialist
    Lloyd's of London, which concluded in a 2016 report that, ``[t]here is
    strong evidence that reefs and wetlands help protect coastlines under
    everyday circumstances by reducing wave energy and raising
    elevations.'' \8\ State agencies in flood-prone areas along the
    Atlantic coast concur. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean,
    a partnership of five Mid-Atlantic States, noted that, ``[c]oastal
    wetlands can serve as an initial but important line of defense to
    protect coastal cities, towns and infrastructure from climate-related
    impacts by storage, conveyance, and wave attenuation.'' \9\ Nationwide,
    NOAA has found that peak floods can be reduced by up to 60 percent in
    watersheds that contain 15 percent wetlands.\10\ NOAA estimates that
    across the United States, coastal wetlands are estimated to provide
    $23.2 billion in storm protection services every year.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Lloyd's Tercentenary Research Foundation. (2016). Coastal
    Wetlands and Flood Damage Reduction: Using Risk Industry-Based Models
    to Assess Natural Defenses in the Northeastern USA.
        \9\ Environmental Law Institute for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
    Council on the Ocean. (2017). Developing Wetland Restoration Priorities
    for Climate Risk Reduction and Resilience in the MARCO Region.
    Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/
    developing-wetland-restoration-priorities-climate-risk-reduction-and-
    resilience-marco-region.pdf.
        \10\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Apply It:
    Understand--Conserving Coastal Wetlands for Sea Level Rise Adaptation.
    https://coast.noaa.gov/applyit/wetlands/understand.html. Accessed July
    1, 2019.
        \11\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for
    Coastal Management. Fast Facts: Natural Infrastructure. https://
    coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/natural-infrastructure Accessed July
    1, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Wetlands provided significant flood-buffering benefits to the
    states impacted by Hurricane Sandy. According to an analysis in
    Scientific Reports, coastal wetlands reduced flood heights and thus
    avoided more than $625 million in flood damages across the 12 coastal
    states affected by Hurricane Sandy, from Maine to North Carolina.\12\
    Among the four states with the greatest wetlands cover--Maryland,
    Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia--wetlands are estimated to have
    reduced flood damages between 20 to 30 percent. Coastal wetlands in
    Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware also helped save the largest number of
    roadways from Sandy's damaging impacts--about 833 miles. Overall, more
    than 1,400 miles of roads and highways were protected by wetlands
    during Hurricane Sandy.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Narayan, S, et al,. (2017). The Value of Coastal Wetlands for
    Flood Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports. No.
    9463.
        \13\ PBS News Hour. (2017). Wetlands stopped $625 million in
    Hurricane Sandy. Can they help Houston? Retrieved from https://
    www.pbs.org/newshour/science/wetlands-stopped-650-million-property-
    damage-hurricane-sandy-can-help-houston.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eelgrass and seagrass beds:
        A variety of experts have evaluated the coastal resiliency benefits
    provided by eelgrass and seagrass beds. The National Institutes of
    Health reported that eelgrass can slow erosion and stabilize sediment
    loss by ``attenuating hydrodynamic energy from currents and waves, and
    thereby trap suspended sediment and cause sediment accretion.'' \14\
    The roots of seagrass beds have been shown to mitigate erosion by
    decreasing or slowing wave impacts on nearshore areas.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Nordlund LM, Koch EW, Barbier EB, Creed JC (2016). Seagrass
    Ecosystem Services and Their Variability across Genera and Geographical
    Regions. PLoS ONE Vol.11 (10).
        \15\ Norlund, L.M., et al. (2018). Seagrass Ecosystem Services--
    What Next? Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 134 (145-151).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oyster reefs:
        The American Planning Association (APA) and American Society of
    Civil Engineers (ASCE) examined elements of naturally resilient
    communities and concluded that oyster reefs can have a significant
    impact in moderating storm damages on nearby communities. ``Oyster
    reefs serve as natural breakwaters--their physical structure absorbs
    the force of waves, creating calmer waters on the shoreline side of the
    reef and reducing the impacts of erosion. Studies from the Gulf of
    Mexico have found that oyster reefs are capable of reducing the energy
    of high power waves by as much as 76 to 93 percent.'' \16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Naturally Resilient Communities. Oyster Reefs. A http://
    nrcsolutions.org/oyster-reefs/. Accessed July 5, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, living shorelines constructed of oyster reefs have proven
    to be more effective than bulkheads in protecting shoreline areas.
    Researchers reported in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management that in
    North Carolina's Outer Banks, living shorelines protected nearby
    shoreline areas from the impact of Hurricane Irene, whereas 75 percent
    of regional bulkheads were damaged.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Gittman, R.K., A.M. Popowich, J.F. Bruno, and C.H. Peterson.
    (2014). Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines
    from erosion better than bulkheads during a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean
    & Coastal Management Vol. 102 (94-102).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barrier islands, spits and dunes:
        In their evaluation of naturally resilient communities, the APA and
    ASCE examined the role that barrier islands and beaches can play in
    protecting upland communities from storm impacts, finding that
    ``[b]eaches are capable of reducing impacts from coastal storms by
    acting like a buffer along the coastal edge and absorbing and
    dissipating the energy of breaking waves, either seaward or on the
    beach itself. Dunes serve as more of a barrier between the water's edge
    and inland areas, taking the brunt of larger storm surges.'' \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Naturally Resilient Communities. Beaches and Dunes. http://
    nrcsolutions.org/beaches-and-dunes/. Accessed July 5, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional benefits from natural infrastructure:
        In addition to providing storm-buffering benefits that can be as or
    more effective than grey infrastructure, there are benefits provided by
    natural infrastructure that are often absent in grey infrastructure,
    making natural infrastructure an even more appealing approach to
    floodplain management.
        Natural Infrastructure can provide habitat that supports the
    economically vital recreational and commercial seafood industries.
    Wetlands not only absorb impacts from storms, thereby protecting upland
    communities from damaging impacts, they also provide vitally important
    habitat that is the lynchpin for the commercial and recreational
    fishing industries. According to Florida State University researchers,
    marshes in Florida provide up to $7,000 per acre in value for
    recreational fishing.\19\ Barrier islands also play a vital role in
    protecting areas that are critical to commercial fishing. According to
    NOAA, barrier islands in Texas protect sheltered bays and estuaries
    from storm impacts, and these bays and estuaries are the foundation of
    a seafood industry that generates $846 million and supports more than
    14,000 jobs.\20\ Elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, 3.5 miles of oyster
    reefs significantly reduce the height and energy of waves while
    contributing to more than 6,900 pounds of additional commercial and
    recreational catch.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Hughes, R. (2017). How Can We Prevent Salt Marsh Die-Off? The
    WFSU Ecology Blog. Vol. 27.
        \20\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Barrier Island
    Restoration. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/stories/barrier-island-
    restoration.html. Accessed July 5, 2019.
        \21\ Sutton-Grier, A.E., et al. (2015). Future of Our Coasts: The
    Potential for Natural and Hybrid Infrastructure to Enhance the
    Resilience of Our Coastal Communities, Economies and Ecosystems.
    Environmental Science & Policy Vol. 51 (137-148).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Water quality benefits can also be achieved by using natural
    infrastructure alternatives that reduce excess nutrients. Along with
    stabilizing shorelines and preventing erosion, coastal wetlands can
    also ``improve water quality by filtering, storing, and breaking down
    residential, agricultural and urban runoff.'' \22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Environmental Law Institute for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
    Council on the Ocean. (2017). Developing Wetland Restoration Priorities
    for Climate Risk Reduction and Resilience in the MARCO Region.
    Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/
    developing-wetland-restoration-priorities-climate-risk-reduction-and-
    resilience-marco-region.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grey infrastructure like seawalls, groins and jetties, cannot adapt
    to changes in the nearby environment. In contrast, wetlands and islands
    can be responsive to changing conditions and adapt to them, thereby
    continuing to provide storm protection benefits as well as habitat. As
    NOAA has observed, ``Evidence suggests that coastal dunes dominated by
    native plants are better able to move inland in response to sea level
    rise while maintaining their integrity and protecting inland habitats
    and land uses.'' \23\ NOAA has documented the responsive, adaptive
    behavior displayed by oyster reefs and eelgrass beds. These coastal
    resiliency benefits ``are increasingly important to buffer shorelines
    against sea level rise and increased storm surge and frequency.'' \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Environmental Law Institute for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
    Council on the Ocean. (2017). Developing Wetland Restoration Priorities
    for Climate Risk Reduction and Resilience in the MARCO Region.
    Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/
    developing-wetland-restoration-priorities-climate-risk-reduction-and-
    resilience-marco-region.pdf
        \24\ NOAA, California Coastal Conservancy, et al. (2017). Case
    Studies of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure in Coastal California.
    Retrieved from http://scc.ca.gov/files/2017/11/tnc_Natural-Shoreline-
    Case-Study_hi.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grey infrastructure, such as seawalls, jetties, groins, and
    bulkheads, can exacerbate erosion in nearby areas, intensifying flood
    risks for properties and communities located in the erosion-impacted
    areas. Researchers with the University of Pennsylvania and the
    Pennsylvania State University documented these impacts, noting that,
    ``when seawalls are constructed on eroding beaches, the erosion
    continues so that the beach in front of the seawall can become very
    narrow or disappear completely. And while groins and jetties trap
    sediment on the updrift side resulting in shoreline accretion, there is
    corresponding shoreline erosion on the downdrift side due to the
    interruption in longshore transport.'' \25\ Natural infrastructure,
    such as oyster reefs, restored wetlands, living shoreline
    installations, and green spaces provide flood protection benefits
    without negative impacts in nearby areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ University of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University,
    et al., ``Coastal Processes, Hazards, and Society.'' https://www.e-
    education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1066
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Army Corps implementation guidance around WRDA 2018 Section
    1149 (c) states that the Corps is already implementing this provision.
    However, the Congressional intent of producing more robust analysis and
    greater use of natural infrastructure alternatives has in fact not come
    to fruition. Looking ahead to WRDA 2020, additional efforts to overcome
    hurdles related to the benefit-cost analysis and other issues that can
    enable the Army Corps to make greater use of natural infrastructure
    should be pursued.
                     3. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material:
        WRDA 2018 Section 1130 authorized a two-fold increase in the number
    of beneficial use of dredged materials (BUDM) pilot projects. Audubon
    has worked with the Army Corps and state partners to use dredged
    material to restore habitat that is important to birds and outdoor
    recreation economies. This work has created and restored islands that
    provide excellent nesting habitat for seabirds and shorebirds,
    including state-listed species of conservation concern such as Black
    Skimmers, American Oystercatchers, and Least Terns, and is leading
    innovations in thin-layer dispersal of dredged sediment to protect
    tidal marsh habitat in the face of sea-level rise. Audubon looks
    forward to building upon our collaborative efforts in Connecticut,
    North Carolina, Maine, Maryland, Florida and Texas. In South Carolina,
    Audubon is working to implement the Crab Bank project that was selected
    as a BUDM pilot project in 2019.
        To further facilitate the continued use and expansion of this
    important win-win program, funding must be dedicated to its
    implementation. A number of projects selected as pilot efforts under
    WRDA 2018 Section 1130 and WRDA 2016 Section 1122 have only been able
    to proceed using funding from the Army Corps Continuing Authorities
    Program because appropriations for the program has not followed the new
    authorizations.
        In addition, Audubon supports on-going efforts within the Army
    Corps to develop and implement best management practices for coastal
    engineering projects that benefit shoreline-dependent species that can
    be incorporated into beneficial use of dredged material projects. More
    information can be found in a recent U.S. Army Engineer Research and
    Development Center Technical Note.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Guilfoyle, M.P., Jung J.F., Fischer R.A. and Dickerson, D.D.
    (2019). Developing Best Management Practices for Coastal Engineering
    Projects that Benefit Atlantic Coast Shoreline-dependent Species.
    Technical Note developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
    Development Center--Environmental Laboratory.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          4. Ensuring new projects avoid adverse environmental impacts
        As projects authorized or approved in WRDA 16 and WRDA 18 advance,
    significant effort must be made to avoid adverse environmental impacts.
    For example, Audubon has expressed opposition to any projects or
    activities on the Pearl River in Mississippi, that involve destroying
    wetlands and wildlife habitat that will imperil birds, fish and
    wildlife, alter local and downstream river hydrology, impair water
    quality and threaten public and environmental health.
        In WRDA 2018, Section 1176 sought to establish a demonstration
    program to advance a 2018 Integrated Draft Feasibility and
    Environmental Impact Statement for the Pearl River Basin, Mississippi,
    Federal Flood Risk Management Project, Hinds and Rankin Counties,
    Mississippi. The plan was prepared by the Rankin-Hinds Pearl River
    Flood and Drainage Control District, whose preferred alternative is
    known locally as the ``One Lake'' project.
        WRDA 2018 Section 1176(b) directs ``the Secretary to determine that
    the project is technically feasible, economically justified, and
    environmentally acceptable,'' while Section 1176(d) acknowledges that
    ``the non-Federal sponsor shall design the project in a manner that
    addresses any potential adverse [downstream] impacts [to the Pearl
    River Basin] or that provides mitigation.'' These requirements must be
    specifically adhered to if the projects proceeds. Before the Secretary
    performs any project review, all Environmental Impact Statement and
    Feasibility Study documents must fully comply with all required federal
    laws. This must include, but not be limited to the National
    Environmental Policy Act, provisions of Water Resources Development Act
    of 1996, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife
    Coordination Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Coastal Zone Management
    Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. This information also must be
    officially noticed in the Federal Register with proper and timely
    review provided to the public, natural resource agencies, and other
    interested stakeholders.
        The study cannot be limited to the proposal's immediate footprint
    but must be expanded to fully encompass rigorous upstream and
    downstream modeling and associated scientific analyses for all river
    miles above and below the proposed activity, including the coastal
    zones of Mississippi and Louisiana.
        The Pearl River is a 490 mile-long waterway, shared by Mississippi
    and Louisiana, which is recognized as one of the most intact river
    systems in the southeast U.S. while serving as a major input of
    freshwater into the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, a Programmatic EIS should be
    required to thoroughly quantify any demonstration project's primary,
    secondary, and cumulative impacts on the basin's flora and fauna. This
    should include at a minimum, impacts on downstream natural resources
    and existing industrial users and commercial sectors (i.e., seafood,
    tourism), Important Bird Areas, 125,000+ acres of existing conservation
    lands, alterations to wetland habitats that help to protect communities
    from flooding and storm events, and impacts to multi-million dollar
    restoration projects planned or underway across the Central Gulf Coast.
        Over the past forty years, there has been an effort to address
    flooding in the Pearl River Basin. Several flood control plans have
    been developed. Many of these plans have inappropriately incorporated
    economic development as a goal. Any demonstration program should place
    priority on natural infrastructure solutions, as discussed above and
    should be required to evaluate less ecologically damaging and more
    comprehensive flood control measures. Some examples include flood-
    proofing existing homes and buildings; better management of existing
    infrastructure (i.e., Ross Barnett Reservoir); selectively elevating
    structures, buy-outs or relocations; setbacks from existing levees;
    floodplain restoration within the river basin; and development and
    implementation of a comprehensive flood and stormwater Master Plan for
    metropolitan areas (i.e., City of Jackson) to coordinate water
    management. A detailed, publically vetted mitigation plan should be
    submitted to and approved by the Secretary and the appropriate funding
    for mitigation set aside in a secure fund allocated for this express
    purpose.
        Any and all mitigation required for activities in the Pearl River
    Basin should be in-kind, occur within the established watershed
    boundary, and be identified and tentatively procured prior to the
    Secretary's approval.
        5. Preliminary Views looking ahead to the next Water Resources
                                Development Act
        As development of the next WRDA begins, ecosystem restoration and
    the use of natural infrastructure should be prioritized. As climate
    change creates more challenges associated with stronger storms,
    increased flooding in some areas and drought in others, projects
    directed toward providing ecological benefits can increase climate
    resiliency. It is more efficient to invest in projects that increase
    resiliency than to react after an extreme weather event occurs.
        Audubon also supports robust funding for the Clean Water State
    Revolving Fund and other programs that provide financing to help
    communities address water quality and water management infrastructure
    needs.
        Attempts to exempt Army Corps projects from environmental laws
    should also be rejected. As innovative efforts continue to advance
    projects more quickly, compliance with environmental laws can ensure
    that projects benefit both birds and people.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these important
    issues. Audubon is ready to work with the Subcommittee and others to
    advance important water conservation issues looking ahead to the next
    Water Resources Development Act in ways that will help protect birds
    and the places they need. We know that where birds thrive, people
    prosper.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, for
    your testimony.
        And we now turn to Mr. Derek Brockbank. You are recognized.
        Mr. Brockbank. Thank you.
        America has an engineered shoreline. Nearly every beach on
    the east and gulf coast and many on the Pacific and Great Lakes
    coasts have been restored, renourished, and reengineered to
    mimic natural systems, and estuarine systems from Louisiana to
    San Francisco Bay are engineered, either armored with bulkheads
    and riprap or preferably with natural infrastructure, such as
    restored wetlands and living shorelines.
        What connects our shorelines is the need for sand and
    sediment. Sand and sediment are the building blocks of a
    healthy coastline. Beaches and wetlands are dynamic systems
    that should naturally be eroding and rebuilding, but too often
    they cannot rebuild because we have prevented sediment from
    ever reaching the coasts.
        Levees prevent flooding and sediment deposition. Hardened
    cliffs, riverbanks, and dams keep sediment out of waterways,
    and jetties and dredging send sediment far offshore.
        We are facing a coastal sediment crisis, and that is before
    we consider the challenges of rising sea levels and localized
    subsidence.
        American Shore and Beach Preservation Association has been
    working with the Army Corps of Engineers for nearly 100 years
    to merge science and policy to protect, restore, and enhance
    our Nation's coastlines.
        We are an organization of beach and coastal practitioners.
    We are the communities, industry, local elected officials, and
    academics who build, maintain, manage, and research our
    Nation's beaches and shorelines.
        Thank you for inviting us to speak here today.
        We believe the most fundamental thing the Army Corps can do
    to better manage coastlines is operate under principles of
    regional sediment management, or RSM.
        This is a concept that sediment is a resource, not a waste
    product, and managing sediment within a watershed or littoral
    system, not a project-by-project basis, is more ecologically
    sound and saves money.
        In short, we need to move sediment within a system, not
    remove it.
        RSM goes well beyond just reusing dredge material, but an
    important part of RSM is beneficial reuse. The Corps dredges
    about 214 million cubic yards of sediment per year from
    navigation channels. Of that, about 38 percent is used
    beneficially.
        And while hitting .380 might get a baseball player into the
    All-Star Game, the Corps should strive to bat 1.000 and
    beneficially use 100 percent of uncontaminated dredge material.
        The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has long
    sought to support RSM and beneficial use. WRDA 2016, section
    1122, has proven to be tremendously popular with local
    communities.
        Last year in the span of a month, 94 projects were
    submitted to be 1 of the first 10 beneficial uses of dredge
    material pilot projects.
        After some delays, the Corps can and should implement and
    highlight these projects as beacons of what can happen when
    Feds and locals work together to manage a scarce resource.
        A beneficial use must be systemic across the Army Corps.
    One way to do this is to change the understanding of the
    Federal standard.
        As part of the Army Corps determination of the least-cost
    alternative for the disposal of dredge material, the Corps
    should include the economic evaluation of sand, including
    potential ecosystem restoration benefits, storm damage
    reduction benefits, and other economic values and long-term
    costs.
        The next fundamental way to improve coastal project
    development and prioritization is modifying the Corps' benefit-
    cost ratio process, the BCR process. BCRs ensure that the
    Federal taxpayers only pay for projects that provide positive
    economic benefits.
        However, in designating a project authorized as flood risk
    reduction or coastal storm risk reduction, the Corps will only
    calculate benefits derived from reducing flood risk. So that
    project will not be designed to support other benefits, such as
    habitat or the economy.
        Furthermore, a project that does have multiple benefits
    must compete for Federal dollars with no advantage against
    projects that have a single benefit. In the case of beaches,
    the economic value can be remarkably high.
        Economist Dr. James Houston has calculated that beach
    travel and tourism generates $285 billion to the national
    economy and $23 billion in Federal tax revenue annually.
        These types of economic figures ought to be considered when
    deciding which flood risk management projects to prioritize.
        WRDA 2018 did authorize a National Academies and a GAO
    study to look at Army Corps dredging practices, and these
    studies will help inform the Corps BCR process, but by
    themselves they do not actually change anything.
        The Corps BCR for flood risk management projects is an
    archaic tool that needs to be modernized. Congress needs to
    direct the Corps to update its BCR process, either to consider
    the full array of benefits or to develop a new methodology for
    prioritization that incorporates a project's secondary
    benefits.
        The result of advancing RSM and beneficial use and
    reforming the Corps BCR will be an improved decisionmaking
    framework that appropriately values natural infrastructure, the
    beaches, dunes, and wetlands that provide flood risk reduction,
    but so much more.
        Army Corps mandates are too broad and the challenges of the
    coast too great for the Corps to continue to focus on projects
    that only solve one problem at a time. Natural infrastructure
    provides flood risk benefits, ecological benefits, economic and
    recreation benefits.
        The Corps has been building beaches for 100 years and
    restoring wetlands for 50 years. So the concept of natural
    infrastructure is not new. The next step is for the Corps to
    maximize multiple benefits for individual projects and within
    coastal systems.
        Finally, the needs of our Nation's coastline are too
    enormous to be solved by policy changes and authorized projects
    in WRDA alone. Our country must make major investment in
    infrastructure that includes dedicated support for coastal
    resilience and natural infrastructure.
        ASBPA looks forward to working with the T&I Committee to
    address these challenges in WRDA and any future infrastructure
    legislation.
        Thank you.
        [Mr. Brockbank's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Derek Brockbank, Executive Director, American
                    Shore and Beach Preservation Association
                         America's Engineered Shoreline
        America has an engineered shoreline. The most iconic beaches in the
    country have all been restored, renourished, and re-engineered to mimic
    natural systems. The beaches of the Jersey Shore, Virginia Beach, Miami
    Beach, Galveston, Malibu, Santa Monica, and Waikiki are part of our
    national coastal infrastructure that has been engineered with nature as
    a guide. Coney Island was the first significantly engineered beach,
    renourished back in 1923. Today, nearly every beach on the East and
    Gulf Coast, and many on the West and Great Lakes coasts, have been
    engineered. Increasingly, even our estuarine and back-bay shorelines
    are engineered, either by ``armoring'' with bulkheads and riprap, or
    with more natural solutions such as restoration and living shorelines.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), authorized by and acting
    under policy established in Water Resource Development Acts (WRDAs),
    has been building natural infrastructure and engineering with nature
    for a long time. And the American Shore and Beach Preservation
    Association (ASBPA) has been working with USACE for nearly a hundred
    years.
        ASBPA is an organization of beach and coastal practitioners. We are
    the communities, industries, and academics who build, maintain, manage
    and research our nation's beaches and shorelines. We are geologists,
    engineers, town managers, elected officials, professors, students and
    coastal advocates. Our mission is to merge science and policy to
    protect, restore and enhance the U.S. coastline; we were founded in
    1926 and have been advocating for a healthy coastline ever since.
        ASBPA believes a healthy coastline, whether restored or natural,
    provides four interconnected values to coastal communities specifically
    and to the nation more broadly:

        a)  Protection from coastal storms, hazards and sea level rise, and
    as buffer to sensitive estuarine ecosystems;
        b)  Ecologically valuable habitat for birds, turtles, fish and
    other coastal plants and wildlife;
        c)  Economic vitality though tourism, shipping, fishing and other
    industries;
        d)  Recreation for tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Americans
    who visit the beach in greater numbers than all our national parks
    combined.

        ASBPA would like to see these values maximized in USACE's
    management of our nation's shoreline. Doing so will take USACE using
    the full authorities provided to them, and Congress authorizing and
    encouraging USACE to use a multi-benefit approach to coastal management
    and project development.
                                      WRDA
        In the last two WRDAs, Congress has included a number of provisions
    that allows or directs USACE to manage the US coastline to achieve
    these multiple benefits. The three areas discussed here are:

        1)  Regional Sediment Management (RSM) and the Beneficial Use of
    Dredged Material (BUDM)
        2)  Modification of the Benefit-Cost-Ratio (BCR)
        3)  Natural Infrastructure.
    regional sediment management and the beneficial use of dredged material
        Regional Sediment Management (RSM) is a comprehensive approach to
    planning and integrating riverine and coastal projects with the core
    principle that sediment is a finite resource not to be wasted. RSM
    seeks to move sediment from where it is not wanted to where it is
    wanted, rather the simply removing sediment from the littoral system.
    RSM can reduce overall costs through cross-business line planning and
    budgeting. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDM) is one aspect of
    RSM, in which sediment dredged for navigation purposes is used to
    benefit a restoration and/or flood risk reduction project. Ultimately,
    ASBPA believes that USACE needs to evolve its budgeting and planning
    operations to reflect RSM principles so that 100% of uncontaminated
    dredged sediment is used beneficially.
        On average, USACE dredges about 214 million cubic yards of sediment
    per year from navigation channels nationwide. Of that, 82 million cubic
    yards (or 38%) is used beneficially on beaches, in wetlands, and in
    nearshore water each year.\1\ This is a good first step, but in an era
    of sediment shortage--less sediment is reaching the coast than ever
    before due to dams, hardened riverbanks and cliff faces, and
    straightened channels--and rising seas, anything less than 100%
    beneficial usage is not enough.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Federal coastal navigation projects were inventoried to examine
    the extent to which RSM goals have been implemented across USACE at the
    project level. This study examined USACE navigation projects that
    beneficially reuse sediments dredged from Operations & Maintenance
    (O&M) projects nationwide. These data were derived from a comprehensive
    analysis of nearly 20 years of USACE dredging data at both the national
    and district level. The data have been quality checked, updated, and
    revised over the last five years through extensive interviews of USACE
    staff at the District, Division and HQ levels. USACE RSM, 2019. USACE
    Navigation Sediment Placement: An RSM Program Database (1998-present),
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Sediment Management Program,
    https://gim2.aptim.com/rsm, accessed July 2, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One good example of RSM in practice is at the mouth of Columbia
    River in Oregon, where the USACE Portland District is working with
    partners to develop a network of nearshore placement sites for dredged
    sediment. The goal is to keep material in the littoral zone so that it
    feeds the beaches of Oregon and Washington through natural coastal
    processes. Placing 500,000 cubic yards of sediment in a nearshore site,
    with no more than five centimeters of accumulation on the seabed per
    disposal, has yielded $200,000 in cost savings to date, helped
    naturally maintain an eroding coastline, and yielded no crab
    mortalities (the primary environmental concern with nearshore placement
    in this region).
        In another example of RSM, near St. Augustine, FL, the Jacksonville
    District has combined multiple federal projects so that timing of
    dredging and placement is aligned. They have also instituted inlet
    bypassing, so less sand accumulates in the St. Augustine Inlet and
    instead is distributed to a down drift shoaling area that distributes
    sand to eroding beaches. This resulted in a $2 million cost savings
    from reduced dredging and associated environmental mitigation efforts
    and by combining permits.
        WRDA 2016 authorized a pilot program for BUDM (Sec. 1122), that was
    expanded in WRDA 2018 (Sec. 1216). Sec. 1122 was slow to get going:
    implementation guidance took a year to finalize, and after 90+ projects
    were submitted for the initial ten pilot projects, project selection
    took nearly another year. But the projects are now underway. One
    project, Deer Island Lagoon in MS, has been completed, and USACE has
    estimated the remaining nine will be in construction by FY2022,
    assuming current dredge timelines hold and construction funding is
    available.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ FY19 appropriations included an $8.5 million increase to CAP204
    (BUDM) to $10 million with report language, ``the Corps is directed to
    fund these pilots, if otherwise competitive, under the CAP Section 204
    line item and the applicable additional funding line items in this
    account.'' FY20 Energy & Water appropriations passed by the House
    includes $7.5 million for ``BUDM Pilot Program'' as well as $20 million
    for CAP204 (BUDM).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Local communities have widely supported the 1122 program.
    Washington State Department of Ecology (WADEC), the local sponsor for
    the ``Grays Harbor South Jetty Placement'' project, used this process
    to convene key stakeholders to plan for the beneficial use of dredge
    sediment to help protect shipping channel jetties, coastal beaches and
    nearshore habitats from erosion while avoiding and minimizing adverse
    impacts to environmental resources, and navigation safety. Through the
    development of the Grays Harbor project, WADEC identified additional
    opportunities for beneficial use in other parts of Washington, and
    developed a strategy to achieve economies of scale through coordination
    with local partners across the state--reducing the cost sharing
    challenges that many communities face. Although the Grays Harbor
    project is not impacting the Town of Ocean Shores, WA, Mayor Crystal
    Dingler has credited the 1122 process with helping her community by
    providing ``invaluable information concerning our ongoing erosion
    problems. This continued engagement in our community process to address
    emergencies and support long-term strategies are critical to helping
    our community make resilient investments for our future. Without such
    data and assistance, we are operating blind.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Interview with Bobbak Talebi, Senior Coastal Planner,
    Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State
    Department of Ecology, July 2, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        USACE has not publicly determined when or how the additional ten
    projects authorized in WRDA 2018 Sec. 1216 will be selected, but USACE
    and congressional appropriations committees have each indicated they
    would like to see the successful completion of the first ten pilot
    projects before constructing the next ten.
    What else is needed:
        The pilot project is an important step in directing USACE districts
    to think more broadly about how they can use dredged sediment and how
    they can work with local project sponsors. But this sort of approach
    must be systemic across USACE projects, not limited to a handful of
    pilot projects, or within districts that seek innovative approaches.
    One way to do this is to change the understanding of the Federal
    Standard. As part of USACE determination of the ``least cost
    alternative'' for the disposal of dredged material, the USACE should
    include the economic evaluation of the sand, including ecosystem
    restoration benefits, storm damage reduction benefits, and other
    economic values and long-term costs. Additionally, reconfiguring
    USACE's budgeting so that projects are not budgeted exclusively as
    navigation or flood risk management will allow for easier development
    of projects that efficiently manage sediment and can support both
    navigation and flood risk reduction.
                               benefit-cost-ratio
        Benefit-cost-ratios (BCRs) for water resource infrastructure
    projects ensure the federal taxpayer is only paying for projects that
    provide positive economic benefits--when benefits outweigh costs.
    However, as currently implemented, USACE BCRs have two fundamental
    flaws:

        a)  BCRs are only calculated using the economically verifiable
    benefits of a project's primary purpose; and
        b)  Projects in wealthier communities inevitably get prioritized
    over projects in poorer communities, since the economic benefit of risk
    reduction is greater for valuable property than inexpensive property.

        Using only the economically verifiable benefits of a project's
    primary purpose sounds sensible, but it means projects are designed to
    maximize just a single benefit, rather than balancing multiple
    benefits. A project that is intended to reduce flood risk, such as a
    beach and dune system, might also have tremendous value as habitat and
    in supporting a tourism-based economy. But in designing a project
    authorized as a ``flood risk reduction'' or ``coastal storm risk
    reduction,'' USACE will only calculate the benefits derived from
    reducing flood risk, so the project will not be designed to support
    habitat or the economy. Furthermore, a project that does have multiple
    benefits must compete for federal dollars with no advantage against
    projects that have a single benefit.
        In the case of beaches, the economic value and even the direct
    return on investment via tax revenue can be remarkably high. Economist
    Dr. James Houston has calculated that beach travel and tourism
    generates $285 billion to the national economy and $23 billion in
    federal tax revenue annually.\4\ Additionally, beach tourism support
    2.5 million jobs directly and 4.4 million jobs including direct,
    indirect, and induced impacts.\5\ While USACE is not an economic
    development agency, and not in business to generate revenue for the
    U.S. Treasury, these economic figures ought to be considered when
    deciding which flood risk management projects to prioritize.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Houston, J.R. 2018. ``The economic value of America's beaches--
    a 2018 update.'' Shore & Beach, 86 (2), 3-13.
        \5\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, prioritizing flood risk management projects based on
    calculation of avoided economic damage means projects in areas of a
    high concentration of wealth have a higher BCR than less wealthy or
    less densely populated areas. This may be a sensible market-based
    decision-making tool, but it exacerbates the problem of lower income
    communities living in flood-vulnerable areas without federal support in
    reducing risk. It also perpetuates a cycle of development in flood-
    vulnerable areas to increase the economic benefits derived from risk
    reduction measures. A more sensible BCR or decision-making tool would
    account for the societal value created by reducing risk to low-income
    communities as well as valuing open space or other flood mitigation
    measures that are currently dis-incentivized by the BCR.
        WRDA 2018 authorized two studies to look at USACE budgeting
    practices, a National Academy of Science (NAS) study on USACE budgeting
    (Sec. 1103) and a General Accountability Office (GAO) study on Benefit-
    Cost Analysis Reforms (Sec. 1204). To ASBPA's knowledge Sec. 1103 has
    not been funded nor begun, while Sec. 1204 is currently underway. Both
    of these studies will help reform USACE's BCR process and should be
    completed as soon as possible.
    What else is needed:
        While studies are helpful in clarifying specific challenges to
    current policy or operating procedure, as well as recommending
    potential solutions or steps for improvement, they don't actually
    change anything. USACE's BCR for flood risk management projects is an
    archaic tool that needs to be modernized. Congress needs to direct the
    USACE to update its BCR process--either to consider the full array of
    benefits, or to develop a new methodology for prioritization that
    incorporates a project's secondary benefits. While this will support
    better projects whose primary purpose is flood risk management, it will
    also support better navigation projects that have multiple benefits
    (such as important BUDM placement sites, or ecological value in
    clearing channels).
                             natural infrastructure
        Wide beaches, high dunes, and verdant wetlands, reefs, mangroves
    and seagrass beds are essential to the 40% of Americans who live along
    the coast. Properly maintained, this natural infrastructure can improve
    communities' resilience and is itself resilient. Dunes and marshes can
    adapt to rising seas, and reefs and coastal forests regenerate after
    storm damage. The same can't be said for ``grey'' (concrete and steel
    based) infrastructure. USACE has been building beaches and dunes for
    flood risk reduction for nearly a century and restoring aquatic
    ecosystems for more than half a century. It should be looking at how to
    fully integrate these missions in combination with its mandate to
    maintain coastal navigation. By doing so, USACE can more effectively
    restore and rebuild our nation's natural infrastructure, in
    collaboration with other federal, state and tribal agencies.
        USACE has many authorizations to use natural infrastructure
    solutions and to consider natural and nature based features in place of
    more traditional grey infrastructure. Recent WRDAs have clarified and
    built upon previous authorizations:

          WRDA 2016, Sec. 1154 authorized collaborative regional
    assessments on coastal resilience that prioritized natural
    infrastructure;
          WRDA 2016, Sec. 1184 required ``natural features'' to be
    considered in feasibility studies;
          WRDA 2018, Sec. 1149 specifically allowed ``natural and
    nature based features'' to be included in aquatic ecosystem and flood
    risk management projects;
          WRDA 2016 & 2018 authorized regional coastal resilience
    studies in the South Atlantic, Great Lakes, and coastal Texas that
    included natural infrastructure solutions.

        None of these were wholly new authorities requiring action from
    USACE, so implementation has been mixed. Districts that use ``natural''
    solutions have more leeway to do so, but ASBPA hasn't seen a notable
    increase in use of natural infrastructure since 2016. ASBPA considers
    comprehensive coastal resilience studies to be invaluable and is
    pleased that the South Atlantic Coastal Study has been funded and is
    underway, and disappointed that the Great Lakes Coastal Resilience
    study has not received approval to begin as a new start and is still on
    hold.
    What else is needed:
        Rather than simply encouraging USACE to use or consider natural
    infrastructure in place of hard, grey infrastructure, Congress should
    set policy on decision-making that will result in natural
    infrastructure being the preferred alternative due to its multi-benefit
    approach. This means requiring an RSM approach to managing coastal
    navigation and restoration projects while beneficially using all
    uncontaminated dredged sediment; and reforming the BCR so that the full
    scope of benefits of natural infrastructure are included in project
    consideration. Additionally USACE's regulatory requirements should
    ensure natural solutions are as easy to permit as hard infrastructure.
    For example, USACE took a good step in creating a nationwide permit for
    living shorelines, but USACE could look at regulatory hurdles to
    natural infrastructure and ensure permitting is not easier for a
    comparable gray infrastructure project.
          A Final Thought on the USACE's Efforts to ``Revolutionize''
        Many of the challenges the USACE has in modernizing to meet the
    needs of the 21st century--the ability to adaptively manage projects in
    the face of climate impacts, expediting project delivery, being
    reactive to the high and lows as well as delays in funding by the
    Administration and Congress--is not something Congress can directly
    fix. These challenges are procedural and cultural that will take years,
    if not decades, to fully address. ASBPA has been pleased with General
    Todd Semonite's call to ``Revolutionize'' USACE, as well as Director of
    Civil Works James Dalton's efforts at implementing procedures to allow
    USACE to operate as a risk-informed, not risk-averse institution.
        But after Gen. Semonite and Mr. Dalton leave, these efforts will
    need to continue. It is incumbent on Congress, and the Transportation &
    Infrastructure (T&I) Committee specifically, to provide oversight to
    ensure these procedural and cultural changes continue. USACE is an
    essential agency as our nation faces the biggest coastal threats in
    history, and it needs to be operating efficiently and effectively.
                                   Conclusion
        As the T&I Committee reviews the success of recent WRDAs and
    develops policies for a 2020 WRDA, ASBPA encourages the committee to
    consider how USACE is able to advance coastal projects that have
    multiple benefits. USACE has been building beaches for 100 years and
    wetlands for 50 years, so the concept of restoring natural
    infrastructure with flood risk reduction, ecological, economic and
    recreation benefits is not new. But the next step is for USACE to
    maximize each of these values for individual projects and within
    coastal systems. This will take systemic changes to increase the
    beneficial use of dredged material, budgeting changes to ensure the
    full value of sediment is calculated and all benefits are included in a
    BCR, and on-going oversight to ensure procedural and cultural changes
    at USACE proceed.
        Finally, the needs of our nation's coastline are too enormous to be
    solved with policy changes and authorized projects in WRDA alone. Our
    country must make a major investment in infrastructure that includes
    dedicated support for coastal resilience and for waterways. From
    sediment management to preparing for storms and rising seas, the
    challenges of our coastlines and our waterways are linked and must be
    solved together. The policy solutions described here--including RSM,
    BCR reform and natural infrastructure--all address these challenges.
    But to be successful these need significant federal funding and need to
    be part of a national infrastructure investment program. ASBPA looks
    forward to working with the T&I Committee to address these challenges
    in WRDA and in infrastructure legislation.
        Thank you for considering our testimony, and we are happy to answer
    any questions.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Brockbank.
        We now recognize Dr. F. Martin Ralph.
        Welcome.
        Mr. Ralph. Good day. Thank you for the opportunity to be
    here, Chairman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman and the
    committee.
        I am here to describe experience we are gaining on bringing
    weather forecast information into reservoir operations. It is
    an experimental effort. It is being done in very close
    collaboration with the Corps of Engineers and with local water
    agencies on the west coast.
        We have brought scientists together in meteorology, in
    hydrology, in biology with civil engineers and water
    management, flood control, and the like to explore how this
    might work in the future.
        Traditionally, forecast information on precipitation has
    not been able to be used directly in reservoir operations
    because historically, the skill has been extremely low. But one
    of the great accomplishments of science in our lifetimes has
    been the development of weather prediction that has some skill.
        We have come to realize through those studies in the last
    several years that certain types of storms that affect the west
    coast we now know as atmospheric rivers have some predictive
    skill. So I am going to take you to a time a few years ago with
    a reservoir in northern California on the Russian River, Lake
    Mendocino, and it was December, and a big atmospheric river had
    hit, had started to refill the reservoir a bit to where it
    should be.
        Another one hit a few days later, encroached into the flood
    pool, and the possibility was there for another one to come. As
    the rules require for this operation, that reservoir, 25,000
    acre-feet was released to restore the flood control pool. That
    flood control pool was then available if another storm had
    come, just as the rules had designed it to be.
        As a meteorologist, I would say facing two ARs that had
    just hit and another one if it were to hit would be a serious
    problem. I think it was a smart move.
        However, what happened and nobody could predict this at the
    time was the drought began, the worst drought on record in the
    area. The reservoir then declined over the next 13 months to
    its lowest point in a long time, and that created a bit of an
    issue for water supply, not only for the people, but for
    agriculture and also for an endangered species there. Salmon
    are a serious issue.
        There is a biological opinion on this river, and the
    agencies that are responsible work very hard to try to keep
    that salmon alive.
        So the Sonoma Water Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers,
    and a group of scientists led by myself and the chief engineer
    of Sonoma Water Agency got together a group to explore the
    possibility.
        Hey, we have seen this atmospheric river phenomena develop
    in our science. We think there is predictability there. Is it
    possible that there is enough skill there that in that case in
    2012 operators could have looked ahead several days and
    realized there is no AR coming? Let's save some of that water,
    pending the next day's forecast and whether or not there will
    be more storms coming enough to be concerned or not.
        One of the special situations in this region of the world
    is atmospheric rivers are the driver of flood. So from a
    weather standpoint, our challenge about looking ahead boils
    down to we really do not care about the run-of-the-mill storms.
    We care about these atmospheric rivers. There are only a few
    each year, and they make or break the water year for much of
    the West.
        They also can produce very beneficial precipitation in the
    case like in 2012, but then if it went too far, it creates a
    flood.
        All right. So we got this team together to develop this
    workplan to decide if we could do a paper study. We had the
    Army Corps of Engineers fully represented on the committee, as
    well as the operator of the dam for water supply. So the
    operators were at the table.
        We had scientists from hydrology and meteorology and others
    together with NOAA, USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others
    who have expertise, and we developed a collaborative framework
    and developed a workplan that we agreed upon to proceed over
    the next several years to do a paper study, a paper study.
        What we discovered in the first 2 or 3 years was that it
    looks very promising. So promising, in fact, that we were
    requested as a committee to submit a major deviation request.
        That was reviewed, approved, and now the reservoir was
    operated this last winter under this major deviation very
    successfully, a fantastic example of the Corps working well
    with its partners and with scientists to develop new
    opportunities.
        This has now led to additional studies in southern
    California, a very different environment, and in northern
    California. Each watershed is different. The weather is
    different, the climatology is different. The operating
    circumstances differ, and we are trying to take a look at this
    new method in these other areas in a systematic way to try to
    explore the potential of it.
        Our committee believes that there is the possibility for
    this to be broadly applicable, but we have also come to
    recognize that in my own naive, nonhydrologist way, every
    reservoir is like a person. It has got its own personality.
        Assuming what we find from one is going to apply to every
    other one is really not valid. So we are taking and developing
    a very systematic approach in close collaboration with water
    agencies that have to deliver water to customers and the Army
    Corps of Engineers, who often co-operate the reservoir in some
    fashion, with our scientists and the ecosystem experts to
    understand whether we can bring weather information in in a
    more reliable way to support water operations.
        [Dr. Ralph's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D., Director, Center for
          Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of
                Oceanography, University of California San Diego
                                  Introduction
        Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss
    water infrastructure policies and implementation of the Water Resources
    Development Act. My name is Marty Ralph and I am the Director of the
    Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) at University of
    California San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps).
        I have worked as a weather and water scientist focused on
    understanding the physical processes that create extremes in
    precipitation ranging from flood to drought, and on advancing
    associated observations, predictions, water management and flood
    control applications and decision support tools. After 21 years of
    experience as a scientist, manager and program manager in NOAA,
    performing, leading and funding research aimed at creating practical
    impacts on weather prediction skill and user-decision making, I moved
    in 2013 to the University of California San Diego/Scripps Institution
    of Oceanography to create what is now the ``Center for Western Weather
    and Water Extremes.'' I have published over 120 peer-reviewed
    scientific articles, and have developed programs on new science and
    technology and their application to solving practical problems. I have
    led many aspects of research on atmospheric rivers over the last 15
    years, and provide input to water managers, and policy makers related
    to western weather and water extremes.
        A key focus of my work these last several years has been to explore
    the potential for use of Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO)
    based on current and future atmospheric river prediction skill. I work
    closely with water managers, including with the US Army Corps of
    Engineers and related experts. A key role is as Co-Chair of the cross-
    disciplinary and interagency Steering Committee for the first FIRO
    project, at Lake Mendocino, and now also as Co-Chair of similar
    committees for two other reservoirs. Recognition: elected Fellow of the
    American Meteorological Society, awards from the Department of Commerce
    such as for ``For comprehensive flood mitigation efforts in response to
    a severely weakened Howard Hansen Dam project with the potential of
    catastrophic flooding,'' awards from NOAA and elsewhere. I have a B.S.
    in Meteorology from University of Arizona, and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric
    Sciences from UCLA.
        This testimony is organized into the following brief sections: 1)
    What is FIRO? What role do ARs play? What have we learned so far,
    primarily from the Lake Mendocino experience? 2) What is happening now
    and what is on the near horizon for FIRO in terms of weather,
    hydrology, and associated science? 3) Perspectives on the need for
    improved predictive skill on time scales of reservoir and downstream
    characteristics. Appendix) Regional water agency statements on the
    impacts of atmospherics, and FIRO.
    1) What is Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO), what role do
            atmospheric rivers play and what have we learned thus far?
        A group of scientists and engineers from local, state and federal
    agencies, including representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, has been developing a proof-of-concept demonstration project
    for Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) since 2014. Last
    year, the group, the Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee, filed a
    request with the Corps to allow a deviation from its established flood
    control operating rules. The deviation request was supported by a
    Preliminary Viability Assessment, which contained detailed modeling,
    analysis and scientific research. The assessment demonstrated that FIRO
    can provide water managers the information they need, with adequate
    lead time, to selectively retain or release water from reservoirs. The
    assessment identified atmospheric river (AR) type storms as the primary
    storm type that can cause flooding and provides up to 50% of the
    precipitation annually. It showed that there is enough skill in AR
    forecasting that it could enable FIRO, and that improved AR predictions
    could increase benefits. Based on the research findings and USACE
    review of the major deviation request, the request was approved in
    November 2018 by the US Army Corps of Engineers' South Pacific
    Division.
        The major deviation allowed additional water, up to 10% of flood
    storage capacity and at the discretion of the operations staff, to be
    stored in Lake Mendocino during this winter's rainy season to improve
    water supply reliability and environmental conditions in the Russian
    River, while continuing to not only ensure but also improve flood
    management capacity of the reservoir. The decision would allow the
    Corps to use modern weather prediction technology to operate the
    reservoir with more flexibility to store more water when no major
    storms are forecasted and order releases ahead of major storms when
    forecasts indicate the possibility of significant reservoir inflows.
        Per the major deviation the reservoir was operated during late 2018
    to early 2019 following the FIRO method. Based on the streamflow
    forecasts from NWS, on new AR-forecast tools developed by FIRO, and on
    a new decision support tool, also developed through FIRO, the reservoir
    held over 10,000 acre-feet of extra water through much of the winter. A
    clear demonstration of the FIRO concept in the real world.
        ``The ability to leverage newer technology and knowledge base as it
    pertains to weather forecast enhances our ability to safely deliver the
    multiple missions at Lake Mendocino,'' said Nick Malasavage, chief of
    Operations and Readiness Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    San Francisco District. ``In particular, the steps we are now taking to
    further develop and incrementally implement the FIRO concept adds an
    additional tool to maintain our primary responsibilities for flood risk
    management.''
        Under the approved request, a maximum of 3.8 billion gallons
    (11,650 acre-feet) of additional water could be stored in the reservoir
    between November 1 and February 28, which is enough water to supply
    approximately 97,000 people for a year.
        Lake Mendocino, located near the city of Ukiah, is operated jointly
    by the Corps and Sonoma Water. The Corps manages the flood control
    operations at the reservoir, or the water in what is referred to as the
    ``flood pool.'' Sonoma Water manages the water stored expressly for
    water supply, known as the ``conservation pool'' and is also
    responsible for maintaining minimum in-stream flows in the Russian
    River below Lake Mendocino.
        Studies show that about 50 percent of the rainfall and 80 percent
    of the floods in the Russian River watershed are due to atmospheric
    rivers--long narrow bands of warm, moisture-laden air that carry huge
    amounts of water vapor propelled by high winds.
        ``We know that a majority of our rain each year comes from these
    atmospheric rivers,'' said Sonoma Water Chief Engineer and co-chair of
    the steering committee Jay Jasperse. ``Because we now have the
    technology to better predict the timing and intensity of these storms,
    it allows us the opportunity to manage our water supply more
    efficiently and maintain flood management capacity in Lake Mendocino.''
        A dramatic illustration of the potential benefits of FIRO occurred
    in December of 2012 when a large atmospheric river storm filled the
    available water supply space in Lake Mendocino and filled about 25,000
    acre feet of the flood pool that is normally kept empty to take the
    crest off of floods. Operating under the Corps procedures, which
    dictate that water in the flood pool be released as soon as possible to
    make room for the next storm, dam operators followed the operations
    rules and released the water from the flood pool, even though no storms
    or flooding was forecasted in the near future. But no additional storms
    occurred, and the next winter was the beginning of a severe and
    extended drought. If improved forecasts had been available and used in
    2012 and atmospheric river storms were not predicted to occur, and
    operation rules were more flexible, the water that had been released
    could have been put to beneficial uses just as the region entered a
    drought.
        The FIRO effort that has led to this approval by the Corps is the
    result of a highly collaborative effort between engineers, physical
    scientists, biologists and forecasters. Sonoma Water and the Corps are
    to be commended for their leadership and innovation on FIRO at Lake
    Mendocino, which is setting the stage for further exploration of this
    promising approach.
        ``This collaboration will have far-reaching benefits for the
    resiliency and reliability of our water supply system in the face of a
    changing climate,'' said James Gore, Chair of Sonoma Water's Board of
    Directors. ``Improved forecasting provides us with the ability to store
    more water and still maintain the flood protection benefits of our
    reservoirs. This is another great example of the benefits of a multi-
    agency partnership that addresses our most challenging issues.''
        The success thus far of the FIRO effort is due in large part to the
    formation of the FIRO Steering Committee and the development of its
    internal culture and processes which has successfully brought together
    groups with often competing missions and interests, but with a common
    vision that better water management operations are possible through
    cooperation and advances in science and engineering. Additionally, with
    the connection and interaction of FIRO Steering Committee members and
    staff from the respective organizations who are engaged in the research
    and operations aspects of water management, the FIRO effort has
    eliminated the gap that can exist between research that investigates
    and makes scientific advances and operators who need tools that are
    ready for application to real world problems with requisite reliability
    and assurance. Research, operations and regulatory perspectives have
    blended in every element of the FIRO effort to produce science to
    inform policy and bring about improved efficiency in water management
    for the simultaneous benefit of flood risk management, water supply and
    ecologic concerns.
        The Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee consists of
    representatives from Sonoma Water (Sonoma County Water Agency), the
    Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes at Scripps Institution of
    Oceanography (Scripps), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geologic Survey
    (USGS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of
    Water Resources (DWR). The deviation request was submitted on behalf of
    steering committee members from Sonoma Water, Scripps, the Corps, NOAA
    and DWR.
    2) What is happening now and what is on the near horizon for FIRO in
            terms of weather, hydrology, and associated science?
        As an atmospheric scientist, I will restrict my comments here to
    primarily the implications for weather and streamflow conditions.
        The first Full, Viability Assessment (FVA) for FIRO is underway at
    Lake Mendocino. A second Major Deviation Request to USACE to operate
    the dam following FIRO this coming winter is in preparation. Scientific
    developments are underway to improve AR forecasts for the region and to
    assess the potential benefits of such improvements. Better observations
    offshore and onshore are aiding in understanding how major storms
    behave and how their precipitation runs off into the rivers and
    reservoir. Computer models for weather and hydrology are being improved
    and a decision support tools using that information are being refined.
        Two new FIRO efforts have begun on systems that are very different
    from Lake Mendocino, and will offer lessons that extend and complement
    what Mendocino is teaching us. These include meteorological and
    hydrological conditions that differ from coastal northern California.
    Fewer storms each year produce more of the precipitation. Mountains are
    tall enough to capture some precipitation as snow, which means a delay
    in the runoff until it melts, some of it days or even months after the
    storm. The watershed is highly urbanized, meaning more of the rain runs
    off into rivers than soaks into the ground. Although these differences
    with the Russian River may serve to complicate matters, the closer
    proximity of Prado Dam to the ocean, relative to Lake Mendocino, allows
    flow to move past flood-impact areas and reach the ocean faster. Thus,
    forecast requirements will likely be less stringent in terms of lead
    times. Maybe 1-2 days shorter. Sierra Nevada reservoirs involve
    additional hydrometeorological challenges. These watersheds are high
    enough that a large fraction of their area can receive snow. Yet AR
    storms are often warm and can melt the snow, thereby adding to flood
    potential. Thus, snow prediction, and snow-melt prediction are critical
    to FIRO in such areas, and require different meteorological and
    hydrological forecast skills and tools, and supporting science.
    3) Perspectives on the need for improved predictive skill for
            atmospheric rivers to support improvements in water supply
            reliability, flood risk mitigation capacity and ecological
            benefits through FIRO
        The viability of FIRO for a given reservoir hinges on adequate
    predictive skill for storms and streamflow conditions that represent
    challenges in operations for either flood control or water supply, or
    for ecological concerns. In much of the US West, this means atmospheric
    rivers. ARs are the storm type that provide much of the annual water
    supply in a relatively few storms each cool season, and that can create
    flooding when they are too strong and impact an already saturated and
    vulnerable watershed.
        The FIRO viability assessment at Lake Mendocino has shown that AR
    forecasts with 3-5 days lead time are key. Analysis has shown that
    current forecast skill is adequate for initial FIRO testing, and that
    future enhancements in skill could yield even greater benefits. Current
    estimates are 20,000 AF net increase in water supply reliability in
    about half the water years, and that additional benefits could accrue
    based on better forecasts.
        The requirements for better predictions for FIRO boil down to
    better AR landfall predictions and of forecasts of how much
    precipitation will be created by ARs and whether it falls as rain or
    snow (in the case of mountainous watersheds with high terrain). Tools
    and methods to improve upon these include:

          Better observations of ARs and their precursors over the
    ocean and coast
          Better weather forecast models tailored to AR and west-
    coast precipitation forecasting
          Better skill in precipitation and streamflow prediction
          Decision support tools tailored to each watershed's needs
          Better scientific understanding required to make the
    improvements listed above.

        Although FIRO has been developed for the West Coast thus far, the
    potential exists for it to be useful elsewhere, such as the Great
    Plains or eastern U.S where ARs can also cause significant flooding
    events such as in Nashville in May 2010 and in the Washington, DC Area
    in July 2018. However, the skill of extreme precipitation forecasting
    is best in the West Coast because ARs have some valuable predictability
    already. In the Great Plains, large thunderstorms, or clusters of
    thunderstorms are key to flooding, and yet are much harder to predict
    than ARs. Tropical storms and hurricanes are another cause, and they
    may have some of the predictability needed, but how that predictability
    relates to the lead times that are required by FIRO in those regions
    remains to be assessed.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
        That sounds very promising, and I hope that you develop it
    further to help anywhere in the United States eventually.
        Thank you, everybody, for your testimony.
        We will recognize myself for 5 minutes and the questions
    that I have for many. I think we will try to expedite this
    since we have been here almost 3 hours.
        Mr. Berginnis, this year's floods have devastated
    communities across the Nation. How do we help ensure that the
    Corps helps to rebuild and how do we build it better?
        Do you think the funding is sufficient to do so?
        Mr. Berginnis. I do not think the funding is sufficient,
    and again, as outlined in our testimony, and it was very
    interesting to hear the comments about how we can bring this to
    bear on all communities, not just with communities with
    authorized projects, and the Corps has so much expertise.
        But it is unable physically to go out into communities to
    help with planning and doing projects, even projects where a
    community might want to do it themselves.
        So that is one aspect of it. The other is, you know, I was
    reading about a report that came out I think in the last week
    or so that used the example of if we use the option of
    seawalls, that across the Nation we are looking at about a $400
    billion price tag when it comes to dealing with sea level rise.
        And the intent of that study was not to say we need
    seawalls everywhere, but the intent of that study was to start
    getting our arms around the magnitude of the flooding problem
    that we face with the future conditions that we are going to be
    dealing with.
        And so the $100 billion backlog that we talk about is
    really small compared to just what we are going to be facing on
    our coasts.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Brockbank and Ms. Hill-Gabriel, we
    hear more reports of coastal beach closures because of the
    algae bloom. What are the ecology and economic consequences of
    algae blooms?
        What are your recommendations for long-term solutions?
        How does it affect communities and tourism and fishing and
    the lost revenue?
        Mr. Brockbank. Certainly the economics of algae bloom are
    devastating to local communities who rely on beach tourism as a
    primary source of their economic wellbeing.
        ASBPA does not work on water quality issues, but we are
    very actively trying to support these communities that have
    beach tourism as an economic base.
        And so I think whatever the Corps is able to do to ensure
    that the water quality is of a sufficient standard to maintain
    that base, it is absolutely critical.
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. And thank you for that question.
        I think another important factor to think about is the need
    to coordinate between local government, State government, and
    the Federal Government. There are many things that are outside
    of the Army Corps' mission that they do not have control over
    that often contributes to the algae blooms.
        So looking at where, for example, there are State water
    quality issues that need to be addressed that end up having a
    confluence with the water management issues that the Army Corps
    is responsible for, we have to look at these things
    comprehensively.
        Almost in every case where we see a massive algal bloom
    problem there is not one silver bullet solution. So ensuring
    that we bring the right people together to talk about each
    different decision maker or entity's responsibility in trying
    to address the problem is critically important.
        And I just have to share that, you know, I saw Congressman
    Mast put up the pictures of the algal bloom in the St. Lucie
    Estuary in Florida, and I remember that about 3 years ago I
    went when it was particularly bad, and went out there for the
    first time--I'd lived in Florida at the time, but not right
    there--and I parked my car and I opened the door, and I was
    across the street from the water, and I thought, oh, I must
    have parked next to a dumpster. I was not parked next to a
    dumpster. This is something that, you know, so far away, the
    smell just really overcomes you, and it truly is something that
    you physically feel in your eyes, and immediately makes it
    challenging.
        So of course people are not going to want to come to these
    destinations that are world-renowned tourist destinations when
    that is the impact that they are feeling. And so the economic
    damages that occur as a result of that are clear.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, do you find that the agencies don't
    always talk to each other? Because when I was in State
    government I had to bring them together to talk to each other
    and cooperate with each other. But doesn't that sound like it
    would be the norm? Should be?
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. I think we wish it would, but that is
    certainly always a challenge, is a need for someone to take a
    leadership helm and make sure that those people are brought
    together to the table at the right time to have the right
    discussion, and that everyone is willing and ready to address
    their contribution to the problem.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Dr. Ralph, one of the sites being
    considered by the organization is Prado Dam, which is in my
    region. I know that all sites are different, as you explained.
    What are the lessons learned from Lake Mendocino and how can
    you apply those to other reservoirs like Prado?
        Mr. Ralph. One of the calculations that needs to be made
    involves how the reservoir is operated. If it is operated such
    that it may need 2 or 3 days' lead time, we can do better at
    forecasting 2 or 3 days out. If it requires 7 or 10 days, that
    is going to be a different story. It is very tough to get these
    storms right 7 or 10 days out. So a lot of it depends on the
    character of the watershed and the dam itself.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would that require cooperation of the
    agencies to be aware of it?
        Mr. Ralph. Oh absolutely and we have been very well-
    received by agencies wanting to discuss this.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Westerman, you are
    recognized.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. For a while, the
    witnesses had us outnumbered three to one, but thanks to
    Ranking Member Graves, we got it down to two to one, now. And I
    want to thank the witnesses for your patience and also for your
    very important testimony, for presenting it to the executive
    committee of the committee, but more than that, getting it on
    record because it is important issues that you have talked
    about.
        Mr. Innis, you talked about the inland waterways and the
    navigation and commerce on those waterways. Can you elaborate a
    little bit more on how the river closures have affected
    industries that rely on products that move up and down the
    river?
        Mr. Innis. Sure. This year has been extreme with the
    flooding that we have seen. We have seen millions of dollars of
    cost to us, and also delays in projects all over our system
    because we can't get the products there. And so that has had
    major impacts on what we have been able to do, and it has
    really caused delays and put more trucks on the road as well as
    finding alternative methods to get there, which is not our
    preferred method.
        You know, and the delays of getting to, let's use St. Paul
    as an example, we were almost 3 months delayed getting there
    from when we would normally get there, and the cost and impacts
    to projects up in that area and further north have been huge
    for us. And modernizing the system is going to be critical
    because if those are modernized, we can recover quicker from a
    flood event to reduce the costs, and that 75/25 split is going
    to be crucial to being able to do that.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you for that. Many of you mentioned in
    your testimony this concept of natural infrastructure. I heard
    words like designing with nature. I thought of the lyrics to a
    song that said I fought the law and the law one. You know, at
    some point we are going to say, I fought nature and nature won.
    And I think we are seeing that in a lot of places now.
        So the question to the panel is how is the Corps
    implementing provisions from WRDA 2016 and 2018 to consider
    natural and nature-based features when studying certain
    projects; and as a followup, is the Corps or non-Federal
    sponsors, are they acting as barriers to considering natural
    and nature-based designs?
        Mr. Berginnis. One thing that I will mention is that we do
    have some concern that the Corps has not yet done rulemaking
    from some of the WRRDA 2014 or also WRDA 2018 related to some
    of the natural infrastructure. The Corps initiated some
    rulemaking in February 2015 but we've not seen any proposals 4
    years later. So by not having the rulemaking, that is
    problematic.
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Thank you. I will add that I think the
    direction was very clear that the Army Corps should be
    considering, or must consider, natural infrastructural
    alternatives in projects like flood risk reduction, and yet it
    is very infrequent; almost never do we see a natural
    infrastructural alternative make it all the way through the
    planning process and get the same level of analysis as some of
    the more traditional routes for infrastructure.
        And I think an issue that a number of folks have mentioned
    today is the cost-benefit ratio analysis. It seems to be one
    hurdle to being able to fully analyze the benefits. And of
    course Secretary James mentioned, himself, that he doesn't
    think they are able to fully interpret the benefits that some
    of these types of projects provide, or options for projects
    provide.
        So I definitely think that as we continue to implement
    those provisions that the committee has made clear, we need to
    look into that more and help them be able to do the right
    analysis.
        Mr. Brockbank. If I may, I will just be real quick. WRDA
    2016, section 1184 required natural features to be considered
    in feasibility studies. WRDA 2018, section 1149 allowed for
    natural and nature-based features to be included in aquatic
    ecosystem and flood risk management projects.
        These were provisions that we strongly supported and am
    pleased were included, but they weren't requirements to do
    natural infrastructure, and so I think we need to change the
    framework for how the Corps decides what projects to do rather
    than just sort of saying, you know, consider this or you are
    allowed to do this. I think there needs to be sort of a
    fundamental switch about how the Corps plans its projects
    rather than just asking them to consider the project.
        Mr. Westerman. In my remaining time, Dr. Ralph, we have
    talked a little bit about innovations and using modern
    technology. During the flooding in Arkansas I was out on the
    river a lot and met a gentleman in his local community. He had
    developed a sensor that was relatively low-cost, you could put
    it on a metal fence post. He was putting these out on private
    property and they were giving real-time water level
    measurements in one hundredth of an inch increments, and you
    can do all kinds of neat stuff with that kind of data, and he
    developed this for the irrigation industry.
        And I said, that's pretty cool technology, have you talked
    to the Corps or anybody about using this for monitoring river
    levels. And he said, you know, the Corps is not interested in
    talking to somebody like me about new technology.
        But do you see a hinderance with the Corps in accepting new
    technology and getting out on the cutting edge of things that
    could be very beneficial in monitoring current conditions and
    changing conditions?
        Mr. Ralph. Actually my experience is just the opposite.
    They have been very open to exploring new approaches. We work
    directly with the research side of the Corps, which is the
    Engineer Research and Development Center is the lead of that,
    and we are actively engaged in testing new methods with them.
        Mr. Westerman. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel, it is great to have you here with us this
    afternoon. As you know, I feel like sometimes I sound like a
    broken record because all I talk about is the situation that we
    have in my district, the Everglades is part of my district, and
    we have been working on Everglades restoration now for two
    decades. And I just feel like we have so much to do, and no one
    seems to have a clear answer on what are the much necessary
    steps to avoid the catastrophe that we saw last summer, and to
    protect our ecosystem, which is dying, and also the livelihood
    of so many, millions, of Floridians that depend on this
    ecosystem for water quality and their livelihood, really.
        So from your perspective, from all the work that you have
    done, what is it that we can do to speed up the restoration
    process right now?
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think the first thing is, again, a common theme we have
    heard today, is that for all the success this committee has had
    in getting new projects authorized, we need help working with
    colleagues in the Appropriations Committee to make sure those
    newly authorized projects get funded.
        The amount of progress that has been able to be made by
    having the ability to authorize new projects get back on a
    regular cycle is clear. When you have that level of certainty
    it really makes a difference because it filters all the way
    back down to beginning new planning studies, and every step in
    the process it takes to bring a project up to Congress.
        When the funding is uncertain, and we have seen the Army
    Corps funding at times can go up and down, it makes it very
    difficult not only for the Corps to plan ahead with how much
    progress can be made in any given year, but it also makes it
    difficult for the non-Federal sponsor to be able to budget
    accordingly.
        Where we have seen a lot of progress in the Everglades has
    been when the non-Federal sponsor has taken the lead and said,
    well, we will make sure we have the funding in place. So if we
    are able to get that $200 million in place this fiscal year and
    future fiscal years, that will make progress happen much, much
    faster.
        And as the chairwoman noted in her opening remarks,
    additional appropriations challenges, like limiting the number
    of New Starts, can also be a barrier to making progress, not
    only on the Everglades but on all of the projects that we are
    talking about here today.
        The last thing I will add is I think that when we have
    these massive long-term programs, it is easy to find issues
    along the way that can divert us off of the course of getting
    projects done and getting the next projects ready. And so
    really maintaining that focus and keeping our eye on what the
    ultimate goal is, and continuing progress is key.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Well, I was on a mission when I
    started in January requesting that funding for the Everglades
    and testified in front of the Appropriations Committee
    requesting those $200 million. I just worry that now that it
    has been approved, that the $200 million will help complete
    some of the planning, not necessarily complete the project. So
    it will delay the restoration efforts. So that is a concern of
    mine.
        Another question that I wanted to ask you, you spoke about
    the marshy areas within the lake that could help in filtering
    some of the toxicity of the water. Can you talk a little bit
    about that and just explain what else we can be doing to just
    improve the overwhelming toxicity that we find in the water
    currently on Lake Okeechobee.
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. That's right. Often we talk about Lake
    Okeechobee in terms of the source of these discharges that go
    out to coastal estuaries and cause toxic algal blooms, but the
    lake, itself, actually has incredibly important habitat. And
    even if you are not concerned with birds or other wildlife that
    rely on the lake, it also contains when it is healthy up to
    150,000 acres of marsh that acts as a natural filtration
    system. So when we hold lake levels too high for too long, or
    too low for too long, some of that marsh dies out and so the
    natural water quality treatment is no longer there.
        And to put it in perspective, the State of Florida south of
    Lake Okeechobee has built about 65,000 acres of manmade
    treatment marshes because we found that despite every
    technology attempted, those treatment marshes were the best way
    to actually remove the nutrients, that nature won. We couldn't
    figure out a better option other than nature, replicating
    nature. So building manmade marshes costs the State over $2
    billion, but meanwhile you have twice that amount in Lake
    Okeechobee itself if you just keep the lake healthy.
        So it is important to also consider the habitat on the
    lake, itself, in the equation of trying to solve those water
    quality problems.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much. I have run out of
    time, but maybe I will ask you some questions after. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Graves, you are recognized.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My question is for Mr. Waters, and obviously we have
    demonstrated just how bad the flooding has been--some of the
    worst on record. Can you expand a little bit, and I apologize
    for missing all of the witnesses' opening testimony--I had
    another commitment--but can you expand a little bit on how this
    has affected the livelihood of our communities and our farmers
    and, you know, all of our area, the businesses throughout? And
    you can focus specifically on the State of Missouri because it
    is the same whether it is Nebraska or Iowa or Kansas or farther
    downstream on the Mississippi.
        Mr. Waters. It has been incredible, this event. Number one,
    I sat on the highway commission in Missouri and at one point we
    had over 407 roads closed due to the flooding. Some of those
    were major interstate highways. I-29 that runs up through
    Missouri and Iowa was closed for numerous days. That alone is a
    huge economic impact.
        The farmland that was flooded, in Missouri one-third of the
    crop produced in the State is produced in the 100-year flood
    plain. We have got a massive amount of that flood plain under
    water now. That is going to have a huge impact on the State's
    economy because agriculture is the number one industry in the
    State, and it is not going to end this year because, as I
    mentioned in my testimony, those levees are going to sit open.
    The Corps is saying that they probably won't get the levees
    repaired for 2 years. I think it is probably more like 3 to 5
    years.
        And so this thing is going to drag on a long time, and it
    just trickles through the whole economy of the State. Not just
    the State, but when you put Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska in there,
    the whole Midwest, it really will affect food production and
    trickle through the United States economy. I really believe
    that.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Can you, just to change gears for
    just a little bit real briefly, talk to me a little bit about
    realignment and setbacks when it comes to the levees and how
    that is going to impact property owners and some of that
    farmland?
        Mr. Waters. Sure, I will talk about a levee breach on my
    property. The hole that was created when the water came over
    the levee and breached, is 51 feet deep. So filling that whole
    would be very difficult, so what we feel like we are going to
    have a realignment and ring that hole. So that can be expensive
    as well, but some of those realignments are, you know, they are
    necessary; there is no other way to fix them.
        As we heard General Spellmon say this morning, just in the
    levees they have been able to look at, $1.9 billion in levee
    repairs. That is----
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. That is a preliminary estimate.
        Mr. Waters [continuing]. Just a tip of just a few of the
    levees that they have, you know, had a chance to get in and
    look at. That number is going to continue to increase.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you Mr. Graves. Mr. LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies for my
    absence here, multiple things at one time, so I appreciate
    Madam Chair having this hearing and this panel for being here.
        I wanted to zero in on the issues revolving around Oroville
    Dam in northern California which suffered a spillway breakage a
    little over 2 years ago, and since then has been rebuilt and is
    well functioning.
        The reconstruction of it, which, you know, we understand
    there are certain issues with how lake levels have to be
    maintained on that, but indeed, for 2 years the lake level of
    Lake Oroville was kept very low in phase with this
    construction, and it was a risk-averse strategy, and again, it
    is understandable part of it here, but I think the net effect
    was the local economic issues faced with that, and I will be
    addressing Mr. Ralph with a question on that here in a moment,
    it hurt the local economy on the recreational side and tourism
    side, as well as the water supply issues for the State of
    California.
        The State has yet--does not contribute any real significant
    funding to Oroville to compensate for county's responsibility
    to maintain roads, law enforcement, fire, et cetera. So the
    county, Butte County, calculates approximately $10 million a
    year of cost to them for providing services that they have
    little authority to be part of.
        So with that, the dam--two economic problems that we need
    help with. We can fix through the FERC relicensing process and
    see that DWR is a bigger partner going forward on what its
    costs of the dam to the community are; and then also looking at
    adding in more, directing to Mr. Ralph, looking at the risk and
    economic impacts when we do this, the forecasting model for how
    the lake level is maintained. Again, it is a different
    situation when the spillway is being repaired. I thought it was
    a little conservative, but--on low levels--but nonetheless, we
    are through that and we have a great water year this year,
    2019.
        So Mr. Ralph, I understand you are working on a forecast
    model with the State in the hope of updating the 1970s era Army
    Corps manual for operations of Lake Oroville as well as New
    Bullards Bar nearby--they kind of work together. Do you expect
    this update to be completed at what point?
        Mr. Ralph. We are working with the Yuba Water Agency and
    California Department of Water Resources in a combined effort
    on the Yuba and Feather that will involve both New Bullards Bar
    and Oroville. We are in the phase now of beginning to develop
    the workplan to lay out what is needed in terms of our analysis
    and science to address the issues. We have a target timeline
    such that our report will generate the inputs into a potential
    water control manual update in the order of 3 years or so from
    now.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, when was this first started or proposed?
        Mr. Ralph. We just began the work together in May.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Of proposing the idea of changing the manual
    or----
        Mr. Ralph. I believe that Yuba Water Agency has already
    been envisioning a change in the water manual associated with a
    revision to their release facilities from New Bullards Bar, so
    we are working with them very closely and coordinating the
    timelines. Our committee includes a representative for Oroville
    Dam from DWR.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, so basically it is a 3-year process from
    initiating, being this year, is what you are hoping for?
        Mr. Ralph. Right. It has been a 5-year process on Lake
    Mendocino and we are accelerating that as we learn along the
    way.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, kind of use that model as a way to move a
    little quicker on this one, hopefully, right?
        Mr. Ralph. Right, we are learning things we don't have to
    reinvent, but there are new challenges on Oroville, in
    particular the High Sierra in the snowpack is a big technical
    issue and we have got to address that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I have noticed, I have looked at a lot of
    numbers on that where there, you know, with a big snowpack up
    there, there is a lot of fear about that snowpack melting all
    at once, but every number I ever watched on CFS input has been
    pretty conservative, I mean pretty low numbers. It hasn't been
    the rush of water coming into the lake. I know that farther
    down, more in central California, those rivers really rage when
    snow melt happens, but up in our area it seems it is not as big
    of a concern, so when I watch how they are managing lake level,
    it seems like there might just be a little bit of overemphasis
    on that.
        So I hope as you are modeling this that--what kind of
    improvements do you think we can allow to keep the lake fuller
    longer into the year so that we have that water supply issue
    for the rest of the State as well as the local economic and
    tourist issues? Is there a way to aggressively look at this
    model and keep more water at a longer period and still have the
    margin of safety that is reasonable?
        Mr. Ralph. Yes, our effort is going to look both at
    increase in water supply reliability in a way as you are
    envisioning there, but also flood control mitigation capacity
    through prereleases. This is aligned with the new release
    structure that New Bullards Bar is envisioning that will allow
    them to make releases at a lower water level in the reservoir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, because when I noticed----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. At Oroville we have a lot of
    capacity through the Hyatt Powerplant to maintain, and then the
    spillway itself is designed for a lot of ability to spill
    safely within the river system, so it looks to me like we can
    certainly be a little more aggressive on keeping the lake full
    longer and still have that margin of safety. So please look
    into that, and I will yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. We are going to go
    into a second round, very brief, but to the panel, all of you,
    why is it important that Congress continue to enact WRDA?
        Mr. Waters. Well, I would just say we have got a lot of
    problems out there, Madam Chairman. We have got flood control
    structure all over the country that needs improvements, needs
    to be put back where it has been damaged, there are problems
    across this whole country, and as I said in my testimony, wake
    up in the morning, turn the TV on, you will see it flooding
    somewhere in the country nearly every day.
        Mr. Berginnis. I very much agree with Tom in terms of the
    problem, and when you also add sea level rise, it is something
    that will be among the national priorities I think we are
    dealing with in this century. We need to have the full
    expertise and the resources of the Corps of Engineers, but also
    take a broader flood plain management approach that includes
    flood control. Thank you.
        Mr. Innis. The biggest thing that we have seen is the
    impact of WRDA of being hitting every 2 years. I mean the
    impact that we have seen to the inland waterway system has been
    huge. We have started to see projects completed and move
    forward, and having that continue is going to be critical so
    that we can get these 15 priority projects done, and the cost
    share will be the next thing to hurdle. Thank you.
        Ms. Hill-Gabriel. Water is life's most critical element,
    and I think as the change in climate means we are going to see
    stronger storms, sea level rise, flooding in some places and
    drought in others. There is probably no more important issue
    than advancing water infrastructure.
        Mr. Brockbank. The Army Corps of Engineers is our Nation's
    most critical agency in addressing many of the water
    challenges, but certainly the coastal challenges we face, and
    they need to have the full tools at their disposal and have the
    authorization to implement projects, and that is done by WRDA
    every 2 years.
        Mr. Ralph. I see WRDA as providing a venue for dialogue
    about innovation and new approaches that could be helpful in
    the long term.
        Mrs. Napolitano. There seems to be the topic for everybody
    that we need WRDA, we need the resources and we need your
    expertise to be able to make sure that we address all the
    issues, and I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Westerman,
    for his comment.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really look
    forward to working with you and the committee on getting
    another WRDA in 2020. It is something we definitely need to do.
    Your testimony is extremely valuable in helping us prepare for
    that, and I would like to yield the rest of my time to the
    ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Graves.
        Mrs. Napolitano. He has a full 5 minutes. I recognize Mr.
    Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Just real quick, I was reading through your testimony, Mr.
    Waters, and you talk about the long- and short-term needs
    necessary to get folks back on their feet and prevent future
    events. So from your perspective, can you go into a little bit
    more depth on how the Corps is going to balance, you know,
    different purposes like fish and wildlife, obviously to the
    detriment of flood control in many cases, but that as well as,
    you know, some of the potential proposed solutions that have
    been offered up, obviously from your perspective?
        Mr. Waters. Well, currently the Corps is trying to balance
    eight authorized purposes with the Missouri River flood control
    system, and they are trying to balance all of those equally.
    Well, they are not equal. This system was built for flood
    control, and so we have to set a priority on flood control. And
    when we do that we are not tossing away the other authorized
    purposes.
        When the system was built for flood control, all these
    other purposes and all these other benefits of a system came
    about. So they will still be there, but to manage this system,
    to protect lives and property, it has to be managed for flood
    control. And so we have got to get back to that, and I think
    one of the first places that we can start is with the dike
    notching that I talked about. If we can get these dikes fixed
    so the water flows downstream. Right now with all the notched
    dikes, as the water comes down the river it hits those dikes
    and swirls; and so it is swirling its way down the stream.
        If you look at the Illinois and the Ohio River, those
    riverbanks are straight and smooth and the water flows right
    down the river. But we have been doing some of these, I call
    them experiments, these projects that we have done have damaged
    the flood control system, and we are seeing results of it now.
    We are seeing more flooding more often.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Graves of Louisiana.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to thank all of you for being here today and
    providing your input. We talked in the first panel a little bit
    about the backlog of the Corps of Engineers, and I want to
    state for the record, unequivocally, that I could not more
    disagree with Secretary James' comment that the backlog only
    consists of projects that have been partially funded. Congress
    doesn't earmark projects. I couldn't disagree more with the way
    that he categorized that. If a project has been authorized by
    this committee, by this Congress, it is a backlog project,
    period. There is a way to take projects out of the
    authorization process through a deauthorization. If a project
    is authorized, it is an authorized project and it is part of
    the backlog, period.
        But moving on, you all have experience in water resource
    projects in some degree. Let me ask you, just show of hands,
    how many of you are satisfied or think that the existing water
    resources project development and delivery process is adequate
    or corresponds with the urgency of the projects that you have
    worked on.
        Madam Chair, I just want to let the record reflect that no
    one's hand is up right now.
        So you, I'm guessing, have worked on water resource
    projects outside of this Corps of Engineers confine, and look,
    I am not beating up on an individual. It is a process. I think
    the organizational structure is flawed. Congress has some
    culpability. I do think you have people in the agencies and OMB
    that have culpability.
        But looking across your entire portfolio of experience, can
    you talk about giving you a magic wand, what are some of the
    things that you would change based on how you have seen project
    development and project implementation occur working with a
    county, a parish, a State or a not-for-profit or other groups.
    And Ms. Hill-Gabriel, feel free to throw some shout-outs for
    Louisiana.
        Madam Chair, for the record, I want to make mention of a
    National Geographic article that said that the Florida
    Everglades was a petting zoo compared to the ecological
    productivity of coastal Louisiana. I would never say those
    things, I am just quoting someone else, but regardless, if I
    could get your all's feedback on that question I would
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Waters. Well, I would just say there is a lot of
    bureaucracy involved in every project, even some--you know, I
    have been talking about levee repairs, but some of those repair
    projects drag on for a very long time as you deal with
    regulations and rules within the Corps of Engineers, and even
    beyond the Corps. You know, we have to do environmental
    studies, we have to gather easements and property rights, so
    there is so much bureaucracy and the timetable just for putting
    one levee back together is extremely long and so that is why--
    --
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But Mr. Waters----
        Mr. Waters [continuing]. I said maybe 3 to 5 years to get
    it done.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Is there a project
    that you have worked on outside of this Corps of Engineers
    Federal confine that you said, you know what, that worked.
        Mr. Waters. Absolutely, absolutely.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Which one? Can you give----
        Mr. Waters. Through the NRCS. You know, we have projects
    and their water----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Another Federal agency?
        Mr. Waters. Yes, but as a farmer I can go to the NRCS, they
    can design my project and give me the plans and then I can go
    outside and find my own contractor to build it and then get
    reimbursed for that for the cost share, whatever. So allowing
    me to do the contracting and taking care of a lot of that stuff
    that the Corps does on the Corps water project saves a
    tremendous amount of money.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And Madam Chair, going back to the
    dialogue we had with Secretary James earlier, this 1043 process
    largely, well to some degree, provides for that. The Corps
    wrote 149 pages of guidance so I haven't had a chance to go
    through it all, but I am not sure that it is efficient as NRCS,
    but it is designed to mimic that process where you can use the
    efficiencies of your own contracting and things along those
    lines. And so I do think making sure that we prevent that
    authorization from expiring is very important.
        Mrs. Napolitano. When you are finished reading it, let us
    know.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. [Laughter].
        Yes, ma'am, I will send you the CliffsNotes. Any others
    care to comment on this?
        Mr. Berginnis. So another thing on adequacy, I think, is
    that, and Derek had mentioned this earlier, is that for natural
    infrastructure, or for nonstructural, the approach is
    incremental and it is as if the sponsor desires it as opposed
    to being an automatic part of project development or repair.
    For example, in Public Law 84-99, why isn't it that we don't,
    as a nation, have a rapid buy-out program for people that want
    to just get the heck out of harm's way.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Or better yet, why don't we look
    at the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery
    Program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, the Hazard
    Mitigation Grant Program, the Corps of Engineers CG program,
    and instead of prohibiting each one of these from being able to
    comingle or work together, actually encouraging them to do so
    to where we can achieve some of these greater objectives like
    where it makes sense buy-out, where it makes sense comingle
    funds and address the backlog of projects, and others.
        Certainly a lot of efficiencies that I think we could
    incorporate, but we are going to address the rest of that
    through questions for the record, but I want to thank you,
    again, for being here today.
        I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. LaMalfa for a
    short one.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you for another round here; try and do
    it half-time.
        Coming back to Mr. Ralph since we have a little time. I
    just wanted to follow up on some of his Lake Oroville thoughts
    here. What kind of improvements do you think in the manual we
    can achieve that will allow us to keep more water in longer,
    especially in the summer months, so we have better recreation
    and tourism as well as what it means for agriculture in the
    southern part of the State and et cetera?
        Mr. Ralph. Not being an expert on the water control manual
    process, I am an atmospheric scientist, I would like to get
    back to you on that if possible.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, then I will follow up. Again, we have the
    ability for a mass amount of water to flow through the
    powerhouse and the newly rebuilt spillway. The spillway is
    large enough to overwhelm the levee system down below with its
    capacity.
        So how far out do you think a forecast model could project
    when we would need to start releasing water to stay within that
    safe range of a full lake in the winter months but not too full
    for--so we have an orderly release but still, again, gearing
    towards a full lake at the end of the springtime? And how might
    that compare to the standard that DWR is already able to use
    working with Army Corps?
        Mr. Ralph. I can't tell you numbers off the top of my head,
    but I can say that factors that come into play are how fast
    water can be released from the reservoir, what amount of water
    needs to be released, what the conveyance system is downstream,
    how far it needs to go, and each reservoir has its own
    particulars of that, and that is what our workplan has
    developed, is intending to quantify very carefully.
        In the case of Lake Mendocino, for example, the number we
    came up with as a committee was 10,000 acre-feet of additional
    water supply reliability. Lake Mendocino is one-tenth the size
    of New Bullards Bar; it is a fraction of Oroville. And based on
    the release structure and the rates that have been allowable,
    it would take about 2 days to release that water. And then
    Guerneville is a town downstream that is flood prone. It would
    take about 1 to 3 days for that back edge of that surge of
    water to get past Guerneville. So you add the 2 days to get the
    water out of the dam, up to 3 days to get out of the way, that
    is 5 days. That gives us our lead-time requirement for adequate
    forecast skill so as to enable FIRO to work on Lake Mendocino.
    So we will have to go through those calculations very carefully
    with regards to the system.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Makes perfect sense. You are either limited by
    the size of the spillway or the system below the levee as river
    to, in this case, it is the river structure that is going to
    limit how much can go without unneeded damage. So I will be
    interested to see how a little more modernized look at what the
    snowpack release would be, so what is incoming to the lake is
    more realistic instead of the, you know, the more great level
    of concern maybe unneeded on that.
        So with that, I will yield back and please keep me apprised
    as you are going along on that, we are very interested in that
    work as it unfolds. So thank you for that, and I yield back,
    Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
        I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that may be submitted to them by
    members of this committee in writing. I also ask unanimous
    consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any
    additional comments, information submitted by Members or the
    witnesses, to be included in the record of today's hearing. So
    without objection--no objection--so ordered.
        I would like to thank--Secretary James left but he was here
    for a good portion of your testimony, and I thank him for that.
    And General Spellmon, thank you very much for staying. I
    recognize your presence and am thankful for it. And to the
    witnesses, thank you for your patience and we thank you for
    your testimony and I bid you good-bye. The subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
                        Congress from the State of Texas
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I am pleased that the Chairwoman is holding this hearing today, as
    it allows us to review the Corps' implementation of the most recent
    Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA), enacted in 2014, 2016, and
    2018.
        On Monday, I held a bi-partisan roundtable discussion in my
    district to tackle the critical issues of flooding, flood prevention,
    and flood control. Federal, state, regional, and local stakeholders
    participated in a lively discussion. During the Roundtable, it was
    explained how $100 billion in flood damage was prevented by spending
    $2-$3 billion annually on a flood control system. It was clear that
    issues of flooding, flood prevention, and flood control must be
    addressed regionally using cross-functional teams with stakeholders at
    all levels of government, working together to protect Americans.
        I am eager to hear from the Administration officials on the first
    panel to find out what is currently being done, as well as their
    initiatives to address flood related issues. I am also eager to hear
    from the stakeholders serving on the second panel today about the
    challenges faced and potential solutions. My interests are specific to
    how we, as a legislative body, can address flood damage prevention,
    which can save lives and millions of dollars. Perhaps the sharing of
    technology can be an avenue to guide drivers away from flooded areas
    and roads.
        My district is facing economic growth. With that growth stirs
    development of rural areas, which may have served as natural flood
    barriers. Recently, my district is experiencing increased flooding. I
    am dedicated to addressing these issues on a short and long-term basis.
        With this hearing, I join all the efforts to meaningfully address
    the nation's critical concerns surrounding flooding, flood damage
    prevention and flood control.
        Thank you. I yield back.

      Letter of July 9, 2019, from Doug Wheeler, President & CEO, Florida
      Ports Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
                                                          July 9, 2019.
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    Chairman
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Hon. Sam Graves
    Ranking Member
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
    Chairwoman
    Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    Hon. Bruce Westerman
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

    RE: Water Resource Development Acts

        Dear Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Graves
    and Ranking Member Westerman:
        The Florida Ports Council represents Florida's network of 15
    deepwater seaports. Seaports are one of the state's greatest economic
    assets, positively affecting every region and every resident. Whether
    moving over a hundred million tons of cargo annually or millions of
    cruise passengers, Florida's seaports generate and support a vast array
    of commerce. These seaports are the gateway for shipment of goods into
    and out of Florida and link our state to vital international markets.
    Our seaports have a $117.6 billion economic impact on the state and
    account for more than 900,000 direct and indirect jobs.
        The bi-partisan efforts of the House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee over the past several years have had a
    significant impact on seaports in Florida, as well as the entire
    nation. Starting with WRRDA 2014, the Committee made significant
    reforms to a stagnant and difficult navigational harbor construction
    and maintenance process. Florida was finally able to enter into a
    partnership with federal agencies to move forward on projects at all of
    our major seaport harbors.
        Florida is the only state with navigational harbors bordering two
    major shipping lanes--the Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean. The Committee's
    efforts have enabled Florida to deepen the harbors at Canaveral,
    Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa. In addition, the Harbor Maintenance
    Funds directed by the Committee continue to allow for navigational
    maintenance at all of Florida's seaports and our inland navigational
    rivers throughout Florida. These reform efforts have also allowed the
    Army Corps to repair navigational and water issues at Milepoint in
    Jacksonville, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan that
    includes vital water projects around Lake Okeechobee and the
    Everglades.
        But, as you all know, the work is not done. The navigational
    deepening project at Port Everglades in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida has
    experienced well over 20 years of reviews and discussions. That port is
    a vital fuel and cargo seaport for Florida's growing population, and
    issues must be resolved to allow that project to move forward.
    PortMiami will need additional navigational deepening to allow for
    additional larger cargo vessels to safely transit and offload at the
    port. And, even absent navigational hazards caused by hurricanes,
    Florida has ongoing maintenance and operations needs at all of our
    harbors. We also continue to work with Congress and the Administration
    to ensure that adequate funds are provided to congressionally approved
    projects. We fully support the efforts of this Committee to ensure that
    the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is used for its intended purpose--
    maintaining the country's commercial harbors.
        Finally, we would like to offer our assistance and services to the
    Committee to hold on-site hearings at any of our seaports on the Gulf
    or Atlantic. We can provide the Committee and staff with port and
    navigational tours of Army Corps operations at our seaports, as well as
    committee hearing space for any necessary discussions with port
    administration, federal agency, and private sector maritime businesses.
        Again, we applaud the bi-partisan efforts the House Transportation
    and Infrastructure Committee has undertaken on WRDA legislation. We are
    committed to providing any assistance the Committee might need on
    future legislative efforts.
        Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of this nation's
    seaports.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Doug Wheeler
                                 President & CEO, Florida Ports Council

     Letter of July 10, 2019, from Nicole Vasilaros, Senior Vice President
          of Government Relations and Legal Affairs, National Marine
     Manufacturers Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F.
                                   Napolitano
                                              Wednesday, July 10, 2019.
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    Chairman
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Hon. Sam Graves
    Ranking Member
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
    Chairwoman
    Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    Hon. Bruce Westerman
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
        Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairwoman
    Napolitano, and Ranking Member Westerman:
        On behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA),
    I thank you for convening the ``Water Resources Development Acts:
    Status of Implementation And Assessing Future Needs'' hearing. As your
    subcommittee and the full committee the continues work to reauthorize
    the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), NMMA encourages your
    consideration of the integral role this legislation plays in creating
    safe, reliable access for recreational boaters and in supporting the
    continued economic growth of the U.S. recreational marine industry.
        By way of background, NMMA is the leading recreational marine trade
    association in North America, representing nearly 1,300 boat, marine
    engine, and accessory manufacturers. Recreational boating is a
    significant contributor to the U.S. economy, generating $170.3 billion
    in annual economic impact that supports more than 35,000 businesses and
    691,000 jobs. Additionally, the outdoor recreation economy as a whole--
    which is driven by boating and fishing and includes RVing, guided
    tours, and motorcycling and ATVing--accounts for 2.2 percent of U.S.
    GDP, $734 billion in gross economic output, and 4.5 million jobs. In
    terms of GDP, outdoor recreation is larger than mining, utilities, and
    chemical products manufacturing.
        Outdoor recreation is a substantial and rapidly increasing part of
    the U.S. economy. For our industry--and the entire U.S. economy--to
    continue to grow, it is essential that port maintenance and dredging
    projects are sufficiently funded. Additionally, adequate funding will
    help create jobs in coastal and inland waterway communities, improve
    access for water-based recreational activities, and make conditions
    safer for the recreational boating and angling communities.
        First and foremost, full utilization of Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund (HMTF) revenue for harbor maintenance activities is essential. The
    HMTF was created to ensure that our nation's harbors would always be
    properly dredged and fully operational, yet much of the fund's annually
    collected revenue does not make its way back to where it was originally
    intended and is desperately needed. In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) estimates that full channels at the nation's 59
    busiest ports are available less than 35 percent of the time--and the
    conditions of small and emerging harbors are far worse. The result of
    insufficient funding for maintenance and dredging projects is the
    deterioration of our nation's ports, harbors, and waterways, which
    support thousands of jobs and commercial and recreational economic
    development nationwide.
        There are sufficient funds in the HMTF to meet the maintenance
    dredging needs of all federally-authorized ports. Full utilization of
    the fund would provide the necessary funding to enable the Corps to
    dredge all federal harbors to their constructed widths and depths.
    Improperly dredged channels exacerbate user conflict in our busy ports
    and harbors, impacting safety and important access points for
    recreational boaters as well.
        NMMA also encourages the committee to consider reforming the Corps'
    dredging project prioritization process to accurately account for the
    economic benefits of investing in projects that facilitate recreational
    use. Under the current process, the Corps give priority to coastal
    harbors and inland waterways with the most commercial traffic, while
    simultaneously providing priority for maintenance of channels at small
    ports that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, or
    public transportation benefits. A recent study found that in 2017,
    Michigan's ports and harbors produced $19.7 billion in economic impact,
    and of that amount, water-based tourism and recreation economic impacts
    were nearly four times the size of commercial economic impacts.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Magnini, V., Boik, W., Crotts, J. (2018). The Economic and
    Fiscal Impacts of Michigan's Ports and Harbors. Institute for Service
    Research.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This flawed system fails to properly account for the value created
    by access for recreational activities--effectively putting boaters and
    the recreational boating industry's $170.3 billion annual economic
    activity at a disadvantage. Small recreation-based shallow draft
    harbors are critical access points for marinas and coastal communities
    where businesses and local communities depend on marine recreation-
    based economic activity. Additionally, without sufficient dredging in
    these areas, some recreational boaters are forced to use high traffic
    commercial channels, which can lead to potential user conflicts and
    safety concerns.
        The prioritization process should be amended to account for the
    economic impacts directly tied to investing in recreational-based
    projects by ensuring that a percentage of existing available funds are
    allocated for three different categories: High-Tonnage, Low-Tonnage,
    and Commercial or Recreational ports. In addition, increases in social,
    cultural, and environmental benefits should be considered in the
    allocation of the three funding categories where appropriate.
        Furthermore, NMMA recommends that the committee direct the Corps to
    study alternative and recyclable solutions for disposal of dredged
    materials, thereby forgoing the continued traditional landfill disposal
    of dredged material and delivering multiple economic and environmental
    benefits to local economies. Due to the naturally occurring process of
    sedimentation, overtime, rivers, lakes, harbors, and bays can become
    filled with debris, sand, mud, silt, and other materials that reduce
    waterway depths, making them difficult to navigate and posing
    environmental and safety hazards. Proper dredging of these sediment
    materials plays a critical role in maintaining clean and healthy
    waterways for local ecosystems and providing access to the recreational
    boating and angling communities. The Corps estimates that hundreds of
    millions of cubic yards of dredged materials need to be excavated each
    year to keep the nation's waterways open for commercial and
    recreational use. Exploring options to increase the use of alternative
    and recyclable solutions will facilitate new opportunities to more
    efficiently and sustainably deliver economic, environmental, and
    societal benefits through the disposal of dredged materials.
        The federal government is responsible for maintaining our nation's
    ports, harbors, and waterways. Applying the full balance of the HMTF to
    harbor maintenance projects will ensure the fees collected in the fund
    are not diverted from critical dredging projects but used to deliver an
    economic boost to the U.S. commercial and recreational boating
    industries that depend on well maintained waterways. NMMA appreciates
    your consideration and stands ready to assist you and the committee
    throughout this important endeavor.
            Sincerely,
                                               Nicole Vasilaros
       Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legal Affairs,
                              National Marine Manufacturers Association

        Article, ``Breached Levee Sucks in Barges in Alexander County,
       Highlighting Need for Repairs, Officials Say,'' by Gabriel Neeley-
     Streit, The Southern, July 3, 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                                   Mike Bost
        MILLER CITY--Overnight Wednesday, six connected barges came loose
    from their tugboat and were sucked through the breach in the Len Small
    levee in Alexander County.
        The current pushed the barges out over flooded farmland near Miller
    City, said Alexander County Engineer Jeff Denny, where they came to
    rest apparently after colliding with an irrigation system.
        Two similar accidents had been narrowly avoided in the past month,
    Denny said, because those tugboats had engines strong enough to escape
    the water flowing into the \3/4\-mile-wide hole in the levee.
        This time, no such luck.
        There were no injuries nor damage to barges, which were all empty,
    said Kent Furlong, owner of Hines Furlong Line, the barge company.
        However, the barges appear to have taken out power lines in their
    path across the flooded fields, Denny said.
        As Hines Furlong worked to remove the vessels on Wednesday, county
    leaders said the incident is a reminder of the need to fix the levee,
    which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has ignored for several years.
        The Len Small Levee is located between Mississippi River mile
    marker 21 and mile marker 35 in far southern Alexander County, near an
    area of farmland known as Dogtooth Bend.
        It has failed repeatedly over the last decade. In January 2011,
    flooding left ``a 5,000-foot breach,'' according to Professor Kenneth
    Olson, of the University of Illinois.
        The levee was repaired that year by the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, working together with local farmers, only to breach again in
    a different location in 2016.
        At that time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declined to fix the
    hole, saying the economic losses on the flooded land were not great
    enough to justify the projected $16 million cost of fixing the levee.
        Instead, the federal agency opted for a stopgap, Denny said, twice
    laying thousands of pounds of rock, known as rip-rap, to strengthen the
    bottom of the breached area and the levee walls, in order to prevent
    further erosion.
        But with the prolonged flooding of 2019, residents of the area
    report the \3/4\-mile-hole in the levee continues to grow.
        ``I would love to know how many millions they've spent, and now
    we're pretty much back to square one,'' Denny said.
        The true extent of this year's damage won't be clear until
    floodwaters recede from the estimated 25,000 acres of farmland flooded
    because of the failing levee, Denny said.
        But regardless, local officials will continue to make the same
    request, Denny said: fill the hole.
        ``We are looking at the consequences of federal policy failing to
    reflect the critical role that levees play beyond flood prevention,
    such as maintaining safe commercial navigation. This makes no sense and
    it's costing Southern Illinois dearly,'' said U.S. Rep. Mike Bost on
    Wednesday.
        To help the levee get patched, Bost introduced a provision in the
    Water Resources Development Act, approved by the U.S. House last
    September, that allows local sponsors to pay the difference when the
    costs of a levee repair are deemed to be financially greater than the
    flood protection benefits.
        However, the provision's implementation on the Len Small has been
    stalled by differences in the legal interpretation of the law between
    the congressional lawyers who wrote it and the Corps of Engineers,
    Denny said.
        ``The Corps understands it to mean local entities can make up the
    difference only with cash contributions,'' Denny said, which would
    require Alexander County to put up over $3 million on the $16 million
    job. ``But the intention of the law was to allow us to pay with work in
    kind.''
        In the past, when the Corps repaired the levee, the county was
    asked to cover 20% of project costs, Denny said, and did so via work in
    kind, with many farmers giving their time and equipment to help with
    construction.
        In the 2011 repairs, local farmers did about 50% of the work, he
    estimated.
        Alexander County residents hoped to bear a greater burden of labor,
    under Bost's proposal, to get the USACE to sign on to the new repairs.
        But for now that possibility remains a ``back and forth''
    discussion at the federal level, Denny said, and no USACE work is
    expected on the levee.
        The Corps of Engineers did not respond Wednesday to questions about
    its position on the levee.
        Meanwhile, the flood fight continues in the nearby villages of East
    Cape Girardeau and McClure.
        On Wednesday, the Illinois Department of Transportation's announced
    the closure of Illinois 146, which runs west from East Cape to Cape
    Girardeau, over the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.
        The road, which is covered by 6 or more inches of water in spots,
    had been closed to low vehicles, but open to trucks and SUV's,
    according to Jerry Held, Alexander County Emergency Management Agency
    assistant coordinator.
        Now, only emergency vehicles and government vehicles will be
    allowed access, Held said.
        Sandbagging continues in the communities of East Cape and McClure,
    and residents of East Cape are still advised to prepare for voluntary
    evacuation if necessary.
        From Springfield, Gov. J.B. Pritzker sent a letter to U.S.
    Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on Wednesday asking him to issue a
    disaster declaration for Illinois farmers. The declaration would make
    new federal resources available to those whose planting season was
    affected by flooding and heavy rainfall.
        ``For months, our state has been battling historic flooding,
    causing untold damage to homes, businesses, and farms across
    Illinois,'' Pritzker said. ``For our farmers, this has meant delaying,
    reducing, or even eliminating planting, hurting a core state industry
    and impacting working families across Illinois. While the state will
    continue to do everything we can to help, a Secretarial Disaster
    Declaration will provide much needed aid to impacted farmers in
    Illinois and I am hopeful the USDA will make this declaration.''

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Jane Satterlee is boated out from her trailer on June 11 in East Cape
      Girardeau by National Guardsmen Andrew Lucas and Tony Clark.--Isaac
                                     Smith

          Letter of February 14, 2019, from David P. Ross, Assistant
       Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency,
                 Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast
                                                     February 14, 2019.
    Hon. Brian J. Mast
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Congressman Mast:
        Thank you for your October 26, 2018, letter requesting the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide information on
    cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, You specifically requested the EPA's
    expertise on two questions:
        1.   Do you consider microcystins algae, blue-green algae, and
    cyanobacteria to be toxins?
        2.   At what level do you consider each to be harmful to human
    health?

        The EPA understands your concern about the presence of harmful
    algal blooms (HABs) in Lake Okeechobee and the potential adverse
    impacts these blooms could have on human and ecosystem health.
        Cyanobacteria and their toxins are considered a serious and growing
    threat to human health. In freshwater, cyanobacteria, sometimes called
    ``blue-green algae,'' are the major HABs-forming group. Cyanobacteria
    are microorganisms that can produce harmful cyanotoxins, such as
    microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin-a. Adverse health
    outcomes from exposure to cyanotoxins may range from a mild skin rash
    to serious illness. Specifically, some of the adverse effects reported
    after exposure to these toxins in drinking water include damage in the
    liver, kidney, and nervous system. Symptoms reported after acute
    recreational exposure to cyanobacterial blooms includes skin
    irritations, allergic reactions, and gastrointestinal illnesses.
        Regarding the levels at which these toxins can be harmful to human
    health, in 2015, the EPA developed non-regulatory drinking water health
    advisories (HAs) for two cyanotoxins, microcystins and
    cylindrospermopsin, to assist federal, state, and local officials, and
    managers of public or community water systems to protect public health
    from cyanotoxins in drinking water. The EPA developed HAs for bottle-
    fed infants and pre-school children (0.3  g/L for microcystins and 0.7
    g/L for cylindrospermopsin) and for school-age children and adults (1.6
     g/L for microcystins and 3.0  g/L for cylindrospermopsin). The EPA
    also developed health effects support documents for the cyanobacterial
    toxins anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, and microcystins summarizing
    relevant information on occurrence in surface water systems and
    toxicology and epidemiology data. The HAs and health effects support
    documents for cyanotoxins can be found on the EPA Drinking Water Health
    Advisory website: www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-
    water-health-advisory-documents-cyanobacterial-toxins.
        In 2016, the EPA published draft Recreational Criteria/Swimming
    Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin under Section 304(a)
    of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for public comment. These Criteria/
    Advisories focus on health risks associated with recreational exposure
    to fresh waters contaminated with microcystins and/or
    cylindrospermopsin. The EPA is currently revising the draft criteria
    document based on the public comments and we plan to issue final
    criteria recommendations in 2019.
        The EPA continues to evaluate the human health effects from
    cyanobacteria and the toxins they produce in drinking and recreational
    waters. In 2015, as part of the Drinking Water Protection Act, the EPA
    developed a drinking water strategic plan for assessing and managing
    the risks of algal toxins impacting public drinking water systems. The
    strategic plan includes assessing the human health risks from emerging
    toxins, including microcystins. The EPA also listed cyanotoxins on the
    drinking water Contaminant Candidate List for further assessment of
    health effects data. In addition, the EPA, states, and drinking water
    utilities are implementing plans to monitor the nation's drinking water
    systems to determine the extent of contamination by cyanotoxins through
    the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
        The EPA will continue to invest resources in researching human
    health effects and developing risk communication materials to protect
    human health from cyanobacterial toxins in drinking and recreational
    waters. The EPA developed several support recommendations and
    communication tools for public water systems, including:
    Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in
    Drinking Water, Cyanotoxin Management Plan Template and Example Plans,
    Drinking Water Cyanotoxin Risk Communication Toolbox, and Water
    Treatment Optimization for Cyanotoxins Document. The EPA also published
    communication materials for states, tribes, and communities to use to
    protect public health during cyanobacterial HABs in recreational
    waters, including: Recommendations for Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxin
    Monitoring in Recreational Waters, and Recreational Water Communication
    Toolbox for Cyanobacterial Blooms. These and more resources on
    cyanotoxins are available on the EPA Cyanobacterial HABs website:
    epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/cyanobacterial-harmful-algal-blooms-water.
        Again, the EPA appreciates your concern regarding cyanobacterial
    toxins in freshwater systems in Florida and is committed to working
    with the appropriate agencies to protect human health. The EPA
    coordinates with federal agencies and states and provides technical
    assistance during HABs and emergencies, such as the recent cyanotoxin
    events in Florida. During the HABs events in Lake Okeechobee, the EPA
    Office of Water and the EPA Region 4 Water Quality Planning Branch
    provided technical assistance to the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection to address public health concerns. The EPA
    also supports and assists three National Estuary Programs in southwest
    Florida: the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Sarasota Bay National
    Estuary Program, and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, If
    you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may
    contact Denis Borum in the EPA's Office of Congressional and
    Intergovernmental Relations.
            Sincerely,
                                                  David P. Ross
                                                Assistant Administrator

     Press Release of May 22, 2019, Issued by the Environmental Protection
             Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast
                  news releases from headquarters > water (ow)
    epa issues recommendations for recreational water quality criteria and
                      swimming advisories for cyanotoxins
                                                          May 22, 2019.
        WASHINGTON--Today, as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA)'s efforts to better protect Americans' health when they
    swim or play near the water this summer, EPA is issuing new
    recommendations for water quality criteria and swimming advisory values
    for two cyanotoxins.
        ``With Memorial Day and summer vacations around the corner, EPA is
    providing this information to help Americans know when it is safe to
    swim and play near the water,'' said EPA Office of Water Assistant
    Administrator David Ross. ``EPA's new recommendations will help state
    and local officials make informed decisions about when to issue local
    water quality and swimming advisories that are designed to protect the
    public, especially vulnerable populations like our nation's children.''
        Algal blooms caused by cyanobacteria sometimes produce cyanotoxins
    at concentrations that can be harmful to people swimming or
    participating in other activities in or on the water. States can adopt
    EPA's recommended cyanotoxin values into their water quality standards
    or use the values as the basis for issuing a local swimming advisory.
        Based on the latest scientific information, EPA has established
    recommended water concentrations, at or below which protects public
    health, for the cyanotoxins microcystins (8 micrograms per liter) and
    cylindrospermopsin (15 micrograms per liter). EPA's recommendations are
    protective of all age groups and are based on peer-reviewed and
    published science.
        EPA is also releasing infographics that states and communities can
    use to communicate basic information about harmful algal blooms (HABs)
    to the public. The infographics highlight how HABs may affect both
    people and animals and provide guidance on how to identify and respond
    to a potential HAB. States, tribes and waterbody managers can download
    handout- and poster-sized infographic files, along with instructions on
    how to add local contact information, from EPA's newly refreshed
    Cyanobacterial HABs website.
        EPA will soon release draft technical support materials for public
    comment that, when final, are intended to help interested states and
    authorized tribes in implementing these recommended values. Support
    materials will include information on waterbody monitoring, assessing
    attainment of water quality standards, listing of impaired water bodies
    and developing total maximum daily loads under Clean Water Act section
    303(d).
        For more information about the recommended criteria and swimming
    advisories visit: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/recreational-water-quality-
    criteria-and-methods
        To download EPA's HABs infographics, visit https://www.epa.gov/
    cyanohabs/infographics-help-educate-public-habs-basics.

    last updated on may 22, 2019

     Letter of May 1, 2019, from Robert Redfield, M.D., Director, Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention, and Administrator, Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian
                                    J. Mast
                                                           May 1, 2019.
    Hon. Brian Mast
    U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Representative Mast:
        Thank you for your letter requesting information regarding toxins
    and toxic water. You expressed particular interest in cyanobacteria
    (also known as blue-green algae) and microcystins.
        Enclosed with this response are answers to your questions.
        Thank you, again, for your letter. We hope this information is
    helpful. If you have any additional questions or concerns. please
    contact Eric Wortman or Amanda Crouse in the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention's (CDC) Washington Office.
            Sincerely,
                                          Robert Redfield, M.D.
                                                     Director, CDC, and
        Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

    Enclosure
     the centers for disease control and prevention's answers to questions
                      about cyanobacteria and microcystins
    1. Do you consider microcystin algae, blue-green algae, and
            cyanobacteria to be toxins?
        The term algae refers to plant-like organisms that are multi-celled
    or single-celled and photosynthetic (i.e., use sunlight to create
    food). Algae are vitally important to oceans, lakes, and rivers because
    they are the building blocks of the food chain and ecosystem. Algae are
    also vital to bodies of water because they produce oxygen to sustain
    life. Multi-celled algae can include seaweed, and single-celled algae
    include microscopic organisms called phytoplankton.
        Phytoplankton can be divided into two categories, cyanobacteria and
    microalgae. Cyanobacteria and microalgae are organisms, not toxins.
    Cyanobacteria may also be known as blue-green algae, although the more
    accurate term is cyanobacteria.
        Cyanobacteria are not infectious and are not toxic per se. However,
    under the right environmental circumstances, cyanobacteria can exhibit
    exuberant growth, or bloom, and may produce toxins that can be released
    into the water. Toxins produced by cyanobacteria include anatoxin-a,
    beta-methylamino-L-alanine, cylindrospermopsin, nodularins, saxitoxins,
    and microcystins.
        Microcystins are potent liver toxins produced by some species of
    cyanobacteria, including Microcystis aeruginosa. Microcystins can
    affect human, animal, and ecosystem health.
    2. At what level or numeric threshold do you consider each to be
            harmful to human health?
        Toxins produced by cyanobacteria (i.e., cyanobacterial toxins) vary
    in their chemical compositions and toxicities. The World Health
    Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    provide guidance on how to assess whether or not a cyanobacterial bloom
    is a potential threat to human health. This guidance is limited to
    microcystins and cylindrospermopsin, as limited data are available to
    develop guidance for many of the other cyanobacterial toxins. The
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention refers to this guidance in
    its work with states and other public health partners to reduce the
    occurrence of harmful exposures to cyanobacterial toxins.
        WHO guidance values for the relative probubility of acute health
    effects during recreational exposure to cyanobacteria and the
    probability of microcystins concentrations are based on cell counts and
    the concentrations of microcystin-LR (the most studied of the
    microcystins) and chlorophyll in the water.
        You can find WHO's guidance values on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/
    nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-and-recommendations, and we have
    reproduced them in Table 1.

    Table 1. WHO Guidance on Relative Probability of Acute Health Effects during Exposure to Varying Cells Counts of
                           Cyanobacteria and Concentrations of Microcystin-LR and Chlorophyll
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Relative Probability of Acute
              Health Effects            Cyanobacteria (cells/mL)    Microcystin-LR (g/L)       Chlorophyll-a (g/L)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Low...............................                 < 20,000                      < 10                      < 10
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moderate..........................           20,000-100,000                     10-20                     10-50
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    High..............................       100,000-10,000,000                  20-2,000                  50-5,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Very High.........................             > 10,000,000                   > 2,000                   > 5,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        EPA has created guidance in the form of health advisories, or HAs,
    that provide microcystin and cylindrospermopsin levels in drinking
    water sources and recreational waters to help determine the potential
    health risks from using the water. The HAs are not regulations and
    should not be construed as legally enforceable federal standards. HAs
    may change as new information becomes available.
        You can find the guidance for recreational waters at www.epa.gov/
    sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/draft-hh-rec-ambient-water-
    swimming-factsheet.pdf. We have reproduced the information in Table 2.

             Table 2. EPA's Health Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin in Recreational Waters
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Swimming Advisory: not to be exceeded on any day Recreational
                         Toxin                         Criteria for Waterbody Impairment: not exceeded more than 10
                                                      percent of days per recreational season up to 1 calendar year
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Microcystins...................................                                                           4 g/L
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cylindrospermopsin.............................                                                           8 g/L
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        You can find EPA's guidance for drinking water at www.epa.gov/
    nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-and-recommendations#what3. We have
    reproduced the information in Table 3.

               Table 3. EPA's Health Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin in Drinking Water
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Drinking Water Health Advisory (10-day) \1\
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
                                Toxin                              Bottle-fed infants and    School-age children and
                                                                     pre-school children             adults
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Microcystins................................................                  0.3 g/L                   1.6 g/L
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cylindrospermopsin..........................................                  0.7 g/L                     3 g/L
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Many\\ states have also developed drinking water and recreational
    water guidance levels for various cyanobacterial toxins. You can find
    them on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/guidelines-
    and-recommendations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Health advisories describe non-regulatory concentrations of
    drinking water contaminants at or below which adverse health effects
    are not anticipated to occur over specific exposure durations (e.g. one
    day, 10 days, several years, and a lifetime). The health advisory fact
    sheet for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin can be found at
    www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/cyanotoxins-
    fact_sheet-2015.pdf.

       Letter of April 16, 2019, from David D. Whiting, Deputy Director,
         Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida
      Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for the Record by
                               Hon. Brian J. Mast
                                                        April 16, 2019.
    Hon. Brian Mast
    United States House of Representatives, 2182 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Congressman Mast:
        Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 2019 asking about
    thresholds used to determine whether a cyanobacteria bloom is toxic.
        First and foremost, the health of Florida residents and visitors is
    the primary concern to DEP and the Florida Department of Health (DOH).
    In my response to your earlier inquiry, I indicated the State of
    Florida relies upon a precautionary presence/absence approach that is
    much more stringent than numeric thresholds. This approach bases public
    health protections on the visible presence of cyanobacteria in a
    waterbody as the trigger mechanism for advisories, media releases, and
    other forms of public outreach. This approach is more protective and
    easier for the public to understand than using numeric thresholds to
    determine when to notify the public for a variety of reasons I will
    address below.
        The World Health Organization's (WHO) thresholds (https://
    www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/toxcyanchap5.pdf)
    for recreational bathers, including swimmers, sail-board riders and
    water skiers, are 10 micrograms per liter of microcystin-LR (MC-LR) for
    a low probability of adverse effects (e.g., irritative or allergic
    reactions that affect less than 30% of the population and ``result in
    discomfort rather than serious health outcomes'') and 20 micrograms per
    liter of MC-LR threshold for moderate probability of health effects
    (e.g., increased long-term risk through ingestion). The WHO suggests
    health organizations should use these thresholds to determine when to
    notify the public and what risk to convey. Florida's approach of ``See
    it, stay away'' is more proactive and thus more protective than relying
    solely on thresholds to determine course of action.
        The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
    produced draft thresholds for recreational waters for microcystins (8
    micrograms per liter) and cylindrospermopsins (15 micrograms per
    liter), however these thresholds have not been finalized.
        There are a number of reasons why the State of Florida believes a
    more precautionary approach, one based simply on the presence of a
    cyanobacteria bloom, is warranted over specific toxin thresholds, these
    include:

        1.)  rapidly changing bloom conditions;
          a.  wind, current, tide, atmospheric pressure, and time of day
    can significantly influence where and how densely a bloom is
    concentrated;
        2.)  the time required to sample, ship, analyze, and then report
    toxin concentrations take too long to effectively support management
    decisions regarding the need for placing or removing an advisory;
          a.  under our current expedited sampling and analysis routine,
    the time required from sample collection to results reporting is 3-4
    days;
        3.)  cyanobacteria have the potential to produce many other
    cyanotoxin compounds besides MC-LR for which no human health thresholds
    currently exist;
          a.  other cyanotoxins include other microcystins (there are more
    than 240 known, but analytical standards exist for only about a dozen),
    aeruginosins, cyanopeptolins, anabaenopeptins, microviridins,
    cyclamides, lipopolysaccharides, polyketides, and some non-essential
    amino acids;
          b.  EPA has not offered sufficiently robust guidance on what
    sample collection or analytical chemistry methods should be used when
    quantifying cyanotoxins;
          c.  This could lead to large variations in reported values and
    the potential to underestimate the public health risk posed by a bloom;
        4.)  poor scientific understanding of what triggers blooms to start
    or stop producing toxins;
          a.  levels of toxin production may be influenced by nutrient
    concentrations, which strains of cyanobacteria species are dominant,
    and the health of bloom; however little information exist that can
    currently be used to predict whether a bloom will be toxic or not.

        I hope you find this information useful. Should you need more
    information, please don't hesitate to contact me again.
            Sincerely,
                                               David D. Whiting
             Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and
                                                            Restoration

      Letter of November 9, 2018, from David D. Whiting, Deputy Director,
         Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida
      Department of Environmental Protection, Submitted for the Record by
                               Hon. Brian J. Mast
                                                      November 9, 2018.
    Hon. Brian Mast
    United States House of Representatives, 2182 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Representative Mast:
        Thank you for your inquiry and your interest in cyanobacteria and
    the management of Lake Okeechobee. As Deputy Director of the Florida
    Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Division of
    Environmental Assessment and Restoration, I oversee the sampling and
    processing of cyanobacteria in Florida's freshwater environments, and
    Secretary Valenstein has asked me to respond to your letter on his
    behalf. This is a relatively complex issue, and while I am happy to
    address your questions below, I also remain available to offer any
    technical assistance you may need.
        Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, are a group of
    bacteria that can be found all over the world and naturally occur in
    Florida's freshwater and marine habitats. These bacteria are
    microorganisms that function like algae in that they are capable of
    photosynthesis and derive their energy from the sun.
        Cyanobacterial cells may or may not contain toxins. Even when a
    cyanobacterial cell has the necessary genes to enable it to produce
    toxins, it may not always do so. Scientists are still actively
    researching what environmental conditions trigger a cyanobacteria cell
    to produce toxins.
        Microcystins are one class of toxins that can be produced by some
    species of cyanobacteria. In Florida, the most common microcystin
    experienced is Microcystis aeruginosa. The microcystin toxins are
    usually contained within the cell until cell death, when the cell wall
    fails and the toxins are released into the surrounding water.
        Because cyanobacterial cells are capable of, but do not always
    produce or release toxins, the Department focuses its sampling efforts
    on the locations that best represent the overall condition and water
    quality of the bloom affected water. DEP and other state and local
    agencies collect samples when algal blooms are observed during their
    routine water quality monitoring, as well as in response to public
    reports. To make it easy for the public to report algal blooms, the
    Department has established both a hotline and online tool at
    www.reportalgalbloom.com or toll-free at 1-855-305-3903. Our laboratory
    performs both cyanotoxin and algal taxonomy analyses on samples
    collected, with results typically provided to the public within 3-4
    days of collection on DEP's webpage.
        The Florida Department of Health (DOH) is the lead state agency for
    addressing potential human health impacts related to cyanobacteria and
    other harmful algal blooms (HAB). DOH monitors the State's Poison
    Control hotline 1-800-222-1222 and emergency room reports for possible
    HAB-related activity. DOH also provides technical assistance and
    educational materials to local health departments in affected counties.
        Due to the highly variable nature of cyanobacteria blooms in
    Florida's waters, DOH and DEP agree that numeric toxin thresholds are
    not the most protective mechanism to trigger a recreational advisory or
    closure threshold. Algal blooms conditions can change too rapidly for
    analytical results to accurately reflect current conditions. Florida
    uses a more precautionary approach and advises citizens and visitors to
    avoid recreating in any surface waters with visible algae present. DOH
    implements this precautionary presence/absence strategy for protecting
    the public when recreating in surface waters, warning the public to
    avoid contact and use of waters experiencing a cyanobacteria bloom.
        The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
    published drinking water thresholds for two cyanotoxins, microcystins
    and cylindrospermopsin (https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-
    water/additional-information-about-cyanotoxins-drinking-water). Public
    drinking water facilities in Florida are currently monitoring for these
    toxins in response to EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
    (https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/fourth-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-
    rule).
        I hope this information provides more clarification. Should you
    need more information in the future, the Department proudly boasts a
    team of a capable and knowledgeable scientists who stand ready to serve
    as a technical resource for you.
            Sincerely,
                                               David D. Whiting
             Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and
                                                            Restoration

       Validation Study--Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, June 2019,
                 Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
        The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has prepared a
    Validation Study for the Wrightsville Beach, N.C. Coastal Storm Risk
    Management (CSRM) project. The Study's purpose is to determine
    continued Federal interest (through 2036) and to increase the total
    construction cost capacity established by Section 902 of the Water
    Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. We anticipate a WRDA 2020
    authorization will allow the opportunity for ongoing Federal
    participation.
        This Validation Study is being conducted under the existing project
    authority and is a cost-shared effort with the non-Federal sponsor, the
    Town of Wrightsville Beach. The USACE is the lead agency with the
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as a cooperating agency.
    Project Delivery Team (PDT) representatives include members of the
    USACE Wilmington, Jacksonville and Savannah Districts with
    participation by the Town of Wrightsville Beach, New Hanover County and
    other Federal and State agencies.
        The report is a fully Integrated Validation Study and Environmental
    Assessment that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) and the USACE's water resources planning process. The
    Recommended Plan would not result in any significant impacts to
    federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated
    critical habitat, would have no significant impact to sites listed or
    eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places,
    would not significantly impact any wetlands or waters of the U.S., nor
    any protected wildlife habitat. Informal Section 7 coordination with
    the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been successfully
    completed. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    have been actively involved throughout this study and will have
    additional opportunity to provide input, as will the public, during a
    30-day public review period ending early August 2019.
        The Recommended Plan is the environmentally preferred alternative
    as assessed by PDT participants. Coordination with resource agency
    representatives was initiated early in the study. Appropriate avoidance
    and minimization measures (i.e. environmental windows, beach placement
    activities, borrow source selection and use, etc.) were developed and
    integrated into the Validation Study process. These measures reduce
    project impacts and conserve Federal and non-Federal funds.
        The Wrightsville Beach Recommended Plan expects annual benefits of
    $10,425,000 and average annual costs of $2,004,000; yielding a benefit
    to cost ratio of 5.2 to 1.

    Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report--Carolina Beach, North Carolina,
            June 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
        The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has prepared a
    Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (BRER) for the purpose of
    determining continued Federal interest and extending the Carolina
    Beach, N.C. Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) project an additional
    15 years (through 2036). The study was conducted under Section 1037 of
    the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. With continued
    Federal interest determined, a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
    of 2020 authorization will allow for ongoing Federal participation.
        Project Delivery Team (PDT) representatives included members of the
    USACE Wilmington, Jacksonville and Savannah Districts with the
    participation by the Town of Carolina Beach, New Hanover County and
    other Federal and State agencies. The Town of Carolina Beach, as the
    non-Federal sponsor, has cost-shared the BRER.
        The BRER is a fully integrated evaluation report and Environmental
    Assessment that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) and the USACE's water resources planning process. The
    Recommended Plan would not result in any significant impacts to
    federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their designated
    critical habitat, would have no significant impact to sites listed or
    eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places,
    would not significantly affect any wetlands or waters of the U.S., nor
    any protected wildlife habitat. Informal Section 7 coordination was
    successfully completed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
    The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have been
    actively involved throughout this evaluation and will have an
    additional opportunity to review and comment on the report, as will the
    Public, during the 30-day state and agency review period ending in
    early August 2019.
        The Recommended Plan is the environmentally preferable alternative
    as assessed by PDT participants. Coordination with resource agency
    representatives was initiated early in the study and appropriate
    avoidance and minimization measures (i.e. environmental windows, beach
    placement activities, borrow source selection and use, etc.) were
    developed and integrated during the BRER process reducing project
    impacts and conserving Federal and non-Federal funds.
        The Carolina Beach Recommended Plan expects annual benefits of
    $6,749,000 and average annual costs of $1,718,000; yielding a benefit
    to cost ratio is 3.9 to 1.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

    Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
        Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
                      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

        Question 1. One of the Corps main mission areas involves flood and
    storm damage reduction. The north central region of Texas suffers from
    significant flooding.
        How can the Corps develop national programs that focus on
    preventing flooding rather than being reactive and responding to
    flooding?
        Answer. Flood and storm damage reduction is a primary mission for
    the Corps. The Corps currently has several national programs under
    which they provide flood risk hazard data and technical assistance to
    states and local communities to support their efforts to understand,
    reduce and prevent flooding. These programs include the Flood Plain
    Management Services, Planning Assistance to States, and Silver Jackets.
    The Corps also has the authority to study and construct flood and storm
    damage reduction projects of limited size and scope through Section 205
    of the Continuing Authorities Program. Finally, the Corps conducts
    specifically authorized flood risk management feasibility studies
    through the Investigations program which can lead to the construction
    of specifically authorized projects that focus on preventing future
    flooding.

        Question 2. How can the Corps share information of flooded areas
    with navigation technology providers to re-route drivers away from
    flooded roads and highways?
        Answer. Local government agencies are responsible for managing and
    directing local evacuation plans during flood events. Any information
    on flooded roads would need to come from the local governments.

        Question 3. Does the Corps have the authority it needs to address
    stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and recharge aquifers?
        Answer. Stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and aquifer
    recharge are typically a local responsibility. However, Section 219 of
    WRDA 1992, as amended, provides authority to the Corps to carry out
    water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and
    development projects.

        Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
        Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
                      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

        Question 1. I recently offered an amendment to the Energy and Water
    appropriations bill that would limit funding to complete the EIS for
    Pebble Mine. Based on what I have heard from commercial fishermen,
    recreational fishermen, Native Alaskans, and many others, I believe the
    risks of this mine in Bristol Bay are too high.
        Just after the House adopted my amendment on a bipartisan basis the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted their comments on the
    Draft EIS to your agency. In over 200 pages of detailed comments, the
    EPA essentially said the EIS does not accurately estimate the negative
    impacts of the mine and that the agency does not think the project will
    comply with the Clean Water Act.
        I respectfully request that you provide the Committee with a
    written response to each issue raised by the EPA in detail within sixty
    days. Specifically, how do you address EPA's concern that the mine
    could result in the loss of genetic diversity within the Bristol Bay
    salmon populations. In addition, please address the shortfalls in the
    overall analysis and the compensatory mitigation plans.
        Additionally, as you know, the guidelines for a 404 Clean Water Act
    Permit require the Corps to analyze alternatives to a proposed
    discharge of dredged or fill material and ``select the least
    environmentally damaging practicable alternative.'' As part of this
    process, the Corps must provide that ``a[n] alternative is practicable
    if it is available and capable of being done after taking into
    consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
    overall project purposes.''
        As part of determining the overall project purpose, the Corps must
    consider the objectives of an applicable governmental land use plan,
    which in the case of the Pebble Mine in Alaska would include the 2005
    Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands as later amended in 2013 (2013
    BBAP). Please provide to the Committee evidence that the Corps has
    considered the objectives of the 2013 BBAP.
        Answer. A complete response to all of EPA's comments cannot be
    provided at this time and will likely not be complete until the
    publication of the final EIS, as resolution of some of the issues may
    require further investigations/studies and/or analysis and discussion
    with EPA. The Corps is currently reviewing EPA's comments and has
    conducted technical workshops with cooperating agencies, including EPA.
    Review of the comments, combined with information obtained during the
    workshops, will allow the Corps to determine where data gaps and
    shortfalls in the overall analysis may exist in the draft EIS. This is
    an important step in the NEPA process and will identify sections of the
    draft EIS that need additional work. The Corps intends to address all
    substantive comments, including EPA's, in the final EIS, which is
    currently not scheduled to be completed until mid-2020.
        Development of the final compensatory mitigation plan is an
    iterative process. The conceptual compensatory mitigation plan was
    included in the draft EIS to solicit input from stakeholders for
    potential compensatory mitigation options. The Corps will consider this
    input and work with the applicant to develop a final compensatory
    mitigation plan. A compensatory mitigation plan would not be finalized
    until after the applicant has demonstrated all practicable avoidance
    and minimization measures for the applicant's preferred alternative.
        The overall project purpose is used in the development and
    evaluation of the least environmentally damaging practicable
    alternative under the Corp's Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) evaluation. It
    is the Corps' responsibility to define the overall project purpose,
    however the applicant's needs and the type of project are considered
    when defining the overall project purpose. The Corps will consider land
    use as part of the public interest review that is required for this
    permit application. The Corps' regulations state that the primary
    responsibility for determining zoning and land use matters rests with
    state, local, and tribal governments, and the Corps will normally
    accept decisions by such governments on those matters unless there are
    significant issues of overriding national importance (33 CFR
    320.4(j)(2)).
        The Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) was developed and is implemented
    by the State, and the Corps will give full consideration and
    appropriate weight to any comments the State may have regarding the
    consistency of the proposed project with the BBAP.

        Question 2. Secretary James, there are multiple efforts within
    California to restore rivers and streams in order to recover salmon
    runs and other fish and wildlife habitat. Some components of these
    efforts are eligible for CAP funding, yet project managers don't apply
    based on the view that the program is oversubscribed and underfunded.
    Can you please provide the Committee with an region by region analysis
    of the demand for CAP funding compared to the actual funding provided
    to the program by Congress?
        Answer. It is difficult to estimate with any accuracy the demand
    for CAP funding. For example, some proposals may not be viable. Also,
    some non-Federal sponsors may be constrained in their ability to move
    forward on potential projects. The table below shows the funds
    available for obligation as of June 30, 2019 and represents both
    regular and supplemental appropriations.

                                         CAP FY 2019--Federal Funds Available for Obligation and Total Demand by Region
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               LRD Funds    MVD Funds   NAD Funds    NWD Funds    POD Funds   SAD Funds   SPD Funds   SWD Funds  Total Funds
                                               Avail for    Avail for   Avail for    Avail for    Avail for   Avail for   Avail for   Avail for   Avail for
                                                 Oblig        Oblig       Oblig        Oblig        Oblig       Oblig       Oblig       Oblig       Oblig
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 14\\............................   $5,472,647  $2,477,612   $2,535,193   $1,573,617     $25,893  $1,924,819    $238,986    $837,041  $15,085,807
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 103\\...........................     $845,975     $60,908    $1,517,88   $2,952,647    $170,368     $57,700    $430,346     $12,006   $6,047,338
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 107.............................   $4,154,060    $138,913   $3,636,658   $(205,428)    $316,728     $77,409  $5,193,222     $42,002  $13,353,566
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 111.............................      $78,774     $10,017     $385,303      $20,053         $22    $159,310     $20,840         $78     $674,398
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 204.............................     $546,466    $800,178   $1,570,945     $112,277     $10,267    $116,964     $57,381     $11,323   $3,225,802
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 205.............................   $6,515,870    $405,271   $1,717,288   $2,756,815  $1,060,496    $921,108  $1,772,728  $1,326,593  $16,476,169
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 206.............................   $2,435,239    $309,517   $4,140,138     $960,359     $82,694  $4,406,713    $374,736    $976,434  $13,685,829
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 1135............................     $449,026    $235,452   $2,697,674   $4,213,172     $20,169    $636,623  $1,201,304     $88,877   $9,542,299
    ========================================================================================================================================================
        Totals..............................  $20,498,058  $4,437,869  $18,200,586  $12,383,512  $1,686,638  $8,300,647  $9,289,543  $3,294,355  $78,091,208
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Data as of 30 Jun 2019.
    \2\ Includes unobligated supplemental funds from PL 113-2 and PL 115-123.

       Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
        Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
                      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

        Question 1. Can you please provide a status update on the
    Sacramento District's Lower Cache Creek Feasibility Study and assure me
    that the Corps is doing everything possible to complete this critical
    Study as expeditiously as possible?
        Answer. The project successfully completed the Tentatively Selected
    Plan (TSP) Milestone in February 2019 and the district is preparing to
    publicly release the draft Feasibility Report in December 2019. The
    Corps is processing a SMART Planning exemption for additional time and
    additional funding to complete the Chief's Report.

        Question 2. When does the Corps expect to finalize the Programmatic
    Agreement among the Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles
    Districts and the California State Historic Preservation Officer
    regarding implementation of section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act of 1966?
        Answer. The Corps will provide the California State Historic
    Preservation Officer (CA SHPO) our final draft Programmatic Agreement
    on August 1, 2019. We will follow up with the SHPO on a regular basis
    to address any issues remaining until the SHPO has made a decision on
    the Programmatic Agreement.

        Question 3. The Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
    Restoration Project in Lake County, California, was authorized in Water
    Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114). Now 12 years
    later, it is far from completed despite $15 million in state funding
    secured recently. Is the Corps prepared to re-engage on the Middle
    Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project, and can
    you please provide a timeline for the Project's estimated completion?
        Answer. In January 2019, the local Non Federal Sponsor, Lake
    County, informed the Corps Sacramento District they had received a
    State grant to purchase real estate and were now ready to move forward
    with the project. In May 2019 the Corps met with Lake County and the
    State of California, Department of Water Resources to establish the
    path forward to restart the project. Lake County is currently
    conducting real estate acquisition with available local funding.
        Funding to update and finalize the feasibility study for this
    project to include a revised Supplemental EIS/ROD to include Section
    106 Cultural Resources and Section 7 Endangered Species Act compliance
    will be considered for future funding along with other programs,
    projects, and activities across the Nation competing for the available
    Federal resources. Upon receipt of funding, the Corps projects the
    study will take 16 to 20 months to complete.

        Question 4. Will the Corps consider including the Middle Creek
    Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project in the Civil
    Works Work Plan for fiscal year 2020?
        Answer. If Congress provides additional funding via an enacted
    appropriations bill in FY 2020, this project will be considered along
    with other projects, programs, and activities across the Nation
    competing for the available Federal resources.

        Question 5. Given the small-scale of the Middle Creek Flood Damage
    Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project relative to other projects,
    will the Corps consider requesting a single appropriation for both the
    design and construction phases?
        Answer. Prior to contemplating design and construction funding for
    this project, the Corps must first complete the feasibility study.

        Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. R.D. James, Assistant
        Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Office of the Assistant
                      Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

    Environmental Infrastructure

        Question 1. Some environmental infrastructure authorities have
    created regional programs for a state or multiple states. These
    programs can provide Corps assistance for multiple projects within the
    region. I have introduced legislation (H.R. 2206) to create a program
    for Arizona. Could you describe some benefits of a regional program to
    address water and wastewater infrastructure, such as flexibility to
    provide assistance to the most beneficial projects and meeting needs as
    they arise before performance and reliability are compromised, compared
    to environmental assistance authorities for a specific locality, such
    as the assistance under the 219 authority?
        Answer. The primary value of regional environmental infrastructure
    programs is that the authorities may be more generic than the Section
    219 authority and therefore a regional authority may be used to
    complete work that may not have been specifically contemplated at the
    time of authorization.

    Rio Salado Oeste
        Question 2. Rio Salado Oeste in the Salt River through the heart of
    Phoenix is a key Corps project that connects the completed Rio Salado
    Habitat Restoration Area to the east with the Tres Rios Environmental
    Restoration project to the west. To date, this project only has partial
    design completed. A Limited Re-evaluation Report (LRR) is needed to re-
    authorize this project and move this important connecting project
    forward. Can you please provide me with a plan on how best we move
    forward with a revised LRR for this project, the resources needed, and
    how those resources will be allocated within the Corps to create this
    report and any other steps necessary to obtain project authorization.
        Answer. The Rio Salado Oeste Ecosystem Restoration project is not
    consistent with the policy and programs of the Executive Branch because
    the proposed plan does not represent an efficient way to target Federal
    and non-Federal resources for aquatic ecosystem restoration. The
    project, as currently authorized, includes upland areas that extend too
    far away (north and south) from the riparian zone which was
    historically supported by the natural hydraulics and hydrology of the
    respective watersheds. By including upland areas that are outside of
    the Corps' typical mission focus on wetland, riparian, and aquatic
    ecosystem restoration, the cost of the project is inflated and the
    aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits that would accrue to the nation
    are overstated and not cost effective. To put this proposed project on
    par with similar desert southwest aquatic ecosystem restoration
    activities, upland habitat restoration would need to be removed from
    the project or provided by others as part of a locally preferred plan.
    The City of Phoenix, the non-Federal sponsor, has provided a Letter of
    Intent to re-initiation the study to evaluate options to reformulate
    the project to address the afore-mentioned outstanding concerns. An
    updated feasibility cost sharing agreement will be required prior to
    restarting the study.

        Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Major General Scott A.
    Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
                          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

        Question 1. In WRDA 2016, we asked the Corps to establish an
    inventory of the nation's jetties and breakwaters. What can you tell us
    about the status of the study, especially for jetties located in the
    Pacific Northwest?
        Answer. The report is under development.

        Question 2.a. The Corps has provided us with data previously that
    all of the nation's navigation channels could be at full widths and
    depths in five years if the Corps was allocated $2.3 billion a year,
    over five years. The Committee has just reported by voice vote my bill,
    which would provide you with those funds.
        If this bill was enacted into law tomorrow--and the Corps receives
    the funding, does the Corps have the capability to meet this goal?
        Answer. No.

        Question 2.b. If not, how do we ensure the Corps has the capability
    to execute additional navigation maintenance revenues when they are
    provided by Congress?
        Answer. The Corps would need to increase its capabilities for
    contracting, surveying and dredging related activities associated with
    this increase in funding. The U.S. dredging industry may not have
    enough capacity to execute the dredging requirements. Buildup of the
    program, including additional dredging assets, would be necessary to
    address all of the dredging at every federal navigation channel.

        Question 3. How many Federally authorized harbors is the Corps
    currently responsible for operations and maintenance (including
    maintenance dredging through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)?
        Answer. The current estimate is that there are 1212 Federally
    authorized harbors for which the Corps is responsible for operation and
    maintenance.

        Question 3.a. Of those harbors, how many fall into the categories
    of high-use, moderate-use, and emerging harbors, as defined in section
    210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986?
        Answer. Navigation portfolio data pulled from the Navigation Data
    Center, included 58 high use channels, 79 moderate use channels, and
    440 low use HMTF eligible harbors.

        Question 3.b. Of those harbors, can you identify all of the
    Federally-authorized harbors that have received operation and
    maintenance funding (through the HMTF) over the last 20 fiscal years
    (and an estimate of the amount received by each)? For the remaining
    number of authorized harbors (those that have not received operation
    and maintenance funding over the past 20 fiscal years), what is the
    current general condition or status of these projects (e.g. are they
    still in use as commercial harbors)?
        Answer. There is not currently available data to provide in regards
    to funding levels of authorized harbors over the last 20 years. All
    Federally-authorized navigation projects are maintained to support
    commercial navigation where it exists. I am not aware of any
    circumstance where a navigation project has been unable to support
    commercial navigation due to a lack of maintenance.

        Question 3.c. What is the current identified unmet operation and
    maintenance needs for emerging harbors?
        Answer. All emerging harbors have received sufficient operation and
    maintenance funding to allow passage of commercial traffic. While there
    are additional authorized widths and depths that could be dredged, we
    do not have a precise estimate of what amount of additional funding
    would be needed to meet that need. The Corps roughly estimates that
    $550 million would maintain all HMTF eligible low use commercial
    projects annually to their authorized widths and depths. Over the last
    3 fiscal years, the Corps has received on average $223 million for
    coastal low use harbors. A large portion of the Corps low use portfolio
    includes channels that have diminished economic activity since their
    original authorization, therefore the Corps would not prioritize
    maintenance of every low use project. For this reason, any additional
    funding would focus on those low use projects, which in the absence of
    economic value, would provide other value to the nation such as by
    providing a means of fuel import for regional power generation,
    subsistence harbors or critical harbors of refuge uses, or support to
    the Coast Guard or other federal agencies, or other significant
    activities.

       Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Major General Scott A.
    Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
                          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

        Question 1. General Spellmon, WRDA 2018 reauthorized the Corps Dam
    Safety Program. This is an important program for the nation--but also
    to my district. What is the status of Whittier Narrows Dam? Are we on
    track to complete the project on time?
        Answer. The Corps is coordinating with Federal and state agencies
    to complete the issuance of approvals and permits.

        Question 2. The County of Los Angeles is very interested in taking
    ownership of parts of the Los Angeles River Flood Control system. The
    President's Budget provides funding for this disposition study, and we
    are hoping the work plan will fully fund the study. Can you discuss the
    Corps' disposition process generally and the next steps for the Corps
    and the County of Los Angeles for the L.A. River Flood Control Project?
        Answer. The Corps Los Angeles District has been in discussion with
    the Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW) regarding transfer of
    ownership and related operations, maintenance, and permitting of
    project modifications for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA).
    The priority project features for the disposition study include
    approximately 40 miles of channels and the Haines Canyon Debris Basin.
        The disposition process for a completed project operated by the
    Corps begins with a disposition study conducted under the authority of
    section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 USC Sec.  549a). The
    current estimated cost of the LACDA study is $1.25 million of which
    $350,000 was included in the FY 2020 Budget. If the disposition study
    determines that the project no longer serves its authorized purpose and
    that disposal of the associated infrastructure and real property is
    feasible, the Corps recommends to Congress that the project be
    deauthorized. Following enactment of legislation deauthorizing the
    project, the Corps proceeds with disposal of the associated
    infrastructure and real property under existing authorities for federal
    real property disposal or any special authority included in the
    deauthorization legislation for the project.

        Question 3. Please provide the Committee with the following:
        Question 3.a. A brief summary of the eight Chief's Reports
    submitted to Congress for authorization; and
        Answer:

        1)  Little Colorado River at Winslow, Arizona. On December 14,
    2018, a report was signed on flood risk management for Winslow, AZ. The
    plan consists of new and reconstructed levees, a flood warning system,
    and improving conveyance through channelization and removal of Salt
    cedar under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Bridge. Based upon
    the October 2018 price levels, the total initial project cost for this
    project is $79.1 million with the Federal share totaling $51.4 million
    and the non-Federal share totaling $27.7 million.

        2)  Delta Islands and Levees, California. On December 18, 2018, a
    report was signed for ecosystem restoration improvements in the
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Based upon the October 2018 price levels,
    the total initial project cost for this project is $25 million with the
    Federal share totaling $16.3 million and the non-Federal share totaling
    $8.7 million.

        3)  Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George County,
    Maryland. On December 19, 2018, a report was signed for ecosystem
    restoration improvements in the Anacostia River Watershed. The plan
    consists of the restoration of aquatic habitat, through the removal of
    blockages, and the reconnection of restored habitat in the Northwest
    and Northeast Branches. Based upon the October 2018 price levels, the
    total initial project cost for this project, as recommended in the
    Chief's Report, is $34.1 million with the Federal share totaling $22.2
    million and the non-Federal share totaling $11.9 million.

        4)  Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island. On December 19, 2018, a report
    was signed on hurricane and storm damage reduction for the Pawcatuck
    River, Rhode Island. The plan consists of elevating and flood proofing
    structures. Based upon the October 2018 price levels, the total initial
    project cost for this project, as recommended in the Chief's Report, is
    $54.6 million with the Federal share totaling $35.5 million and the
    non-Federal share totaling $19.1 million.

        5)  Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management, Virginia. On February
    05, 2019, a report was signed on hurricane and storm damage reduction
    for the City of Norfolk, Virginia. The proposed plan includes
    constructing storm surge barriers with a pump and power station at
    Pretty Lake. The proposed work would tie into existing floodwalls and
    levees. Nonstructural features for the neighborhoods outside of the
    structural system include oyster reefs and living shorelines as natural
    and nature based features to increase resiliency. Based upon the
    October 2018 price levels, the total initial project cost for this
    project, as recommended in the Chief's Report, is $1.4 billion with the
    Federal share totaling $885.2 million and the non-Federal share
    totaling $476.6 million.

        6)  Souris River Basin, Minot, North Dakota. On April 16, 2019, a
    report was signed on flood risk management for the City of Minot, North
    Dakota. The plan consists of a diversion channel, earthen levee, a
    levee as a tieback and recreation trail connecting to an existing trail
    system. Based upon the October 2018 price levels, the total initial
    project cost for this project, as recommended in the Chief's Report, is
    $87.3 million with the Federal share totaling $56.7 million and the
    non-Federal share totaling $30.6 million.

        7)  Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois. On May 23, 2019, a report
    was signed for ecosystem protection improvements to impede upstream
    transfer of aquatic nuisance species at Brandon Road Lock and Dam in
    Will County, Illinois. The plan would consist of a flushing lock and an
    engineered channel, acoustic fish deterrent, electric barrier and an
    air bubble curtain. Nonstructural measures would primarily be
    implemented by other federal agencies and include public education and
    outreach, nonstructural monitoring, integrated pest management,
    pesticides, manual or mechanical removal and research and development.
    Supporting measures include two boat launches. Based upon the October
    2018 price levels, the total initial project cost for this project, as
    recommended in the Chief's Report, is $830.8 million with the Federal
    share totaling $540.0 million and the non-Federal share totaling $290.8
    million.

        8)  Yuba River, California. On June 20, 2019, a report was signed
    for ecosystem restoration improvements on the Yuba River, California.
    The plan would consist of a restoring aquatic and riparian habitat
    along the lower Yuba River. Based upon the October 2018 price levels,
    the total initial project cost for this project, as recommended in the
    Chief's Report, is $97.2 million with the Federal share totaling $63.2
    million and the non-Federal share totaling $34.0 million.

        Question 3.b. Post-authorization change reports needing
    Congressional action, including any potential 902 modifications
    necessary before calendar year 2020.
        Answer. The Corps has completed a disposition study for Willamette
    Falls Locks, Willamettte River, Oregon that recommends seismic repairs
    prior to transfer of the facility to a non-Federal entity. Based upon
    the October 2018 price levels, as recommended in the disposition study,
    is $2.827 million.

      Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Major General Scott A.
    Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
                          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

        Question 1. One of the Corps' main mission areas involves flood and
    storm damage reduction. The North central region of Texas suffers from
    significant flooding.
        How can the Corps develop national programs that focus on
    preventing flooding rather than being reactive and responding to
    flooding?
        Answer. Flood and storm damage reduction is a primary mission for
    the Corps. The Corps currently has several national programs under
    which they provide flood risk hazard data and technical assistance to
    states and local communities to support their efforts to understand,
    reduce and prevent flooding. These programs include the Flood Plain
    Management Services, Planning Assistance to States, and Silver Jackets.
    The Corps also has the authority to study and construct flood and storm
    damage reduction projects of limited size and scope through Section 205
    of the Continuing Authorities Program. Finally, the Corps conducts
    specifically authorized flood risk management feasibility studies
    through the Investigations program which can lead to the construction
    of specifically authorized projects that focus on preventing future
    flooding.

        Question 2. How can the Corps share information of flooded areas
    with navigation technology providers to re-route drivers away from
    flooded roads and highways?
        Answer. Local government agencies are responsible for managing and
    directing local evacuation plans during flood events. Any information
    on flooded roads would need to come from the local governments.

        Question 3. Does the Corps have the authority it needs to address
    stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and recharge aquifers?
        Answer. Stormwater runoff, filtering stormwater, and aquifer
    recharge are typically a local responsibility. However, Section 219 of
    WRDA 1992, as amended, provides authority to the Corps to carry out
    water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and
    development projects.

     Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Major General Scott A. Spellmon,
    Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army
                               Corps of Engineers

    Environmental Infrastructure

        Question 1. Some environmental infrastructure authorities have
    created regional programs for a state or multiple states. These
    programs can provide Corps assistance for multiple projects within the
    region. I have introduced legislation (H.R. 2206) to create a program
    for Arizona. Could you describe some benefits of a regional program to
    address water and wastewater infrastructure, such as flexibility to
    provide assistance to the most beneficial projects and meeting needs as
    they arise before performance and reliability are compromised, compared
    to environmental assistance authorities for a specific locality, such
    as the assistance under the 219 authority?
        Answer. [Editor's note: Major General Spellmon did not respond to
    this question. However, Hon. James responded to this question from Hon.
    Stanton above.]

    Rio Salado Oeste

        Question 2. Rio Salado Oeste in the Salt River through the heart of
    Phoenix is a key Corps project that connects the completed Rio Salado
    Habitat Restoration Area to the east with the Tres Rios Environmental
    Restoration project to the west. To date, this project only has partial
    design completed. A Limited Re-evaluation Report (LRR) is needed to re-
    authorize this project and move this important connecting project
    forward. Can you please provide me with a plan on how best we move
    forward with a revised LRR for this project, the resources needed, and
    how those resources will be allocated within the Corps to create this
    report and any other steps necessary to obtain project authorization.
        Answer. [Editor's note: Major General Spellmon did not respond to
    this question. However, Hon. James responded to this question from Hon.
    Stanton above.]

     Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Major General Scott A. Spellmon,
    Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army
                               Corps of Engineers

        Question 1. The Bonnet Carre Spillway has been opened four times in
    the past four years for the first time in history, and, also for the
    first time, twice in one year. There are clearly large-scale factors
    that are challenging the normal operating procedures of managing the
    Mississippi River. The Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA
    2018; Title I of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018; P.L. 115-
    270) required a report to Congress on structure and operations plan for
    the Old River Control Structure and how it can be best optimized to
    manage the Mississippi, Atchafalaya, Red, and Old Rivers. As I
    understand it, the Corps will not be completing that report but is
    instead completing a three-year ``Old-Mississippi-Atchafalaya-Red
    Rivers'' (OMAR) study. I am deeply concerned that a three-year study
    does not carry the urgency of addressing how to better manage what is
    currently an annual and predictable emergency.
        Question 1.a. What is the status of funding for the OMAR study?
        Answer. The Corps allocated Fiscal Year 2019 funds to initiate the
    OMAR Assessment.

        Question 1.b. What are the study's intended objectives?
        Answer. The intended objectives of the OMAR Assessment is to:
    evaluate operations at the Old River Control Structure (OCRS) with a
    focus on the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers; calculate the current
    volume of sediment and water passing through ORCS, including potential
    changes to those volumes; and evaluate if operational changes at ORCS
    are advisable to ensure that the MR&T System can safely pass the
    project design flood into the future. The OMAR Assessment will consider
    the operation of the Sidney A. Murray Jr. Hydropower Plant and its
    impact on, and capability for, sediment distribution, as well as other
    upstream and downstream impacts and opportunities in the project area.

        Question 1.c. Will the study contain actionable items for the Corps
    and for Congress to improve management of these river systems?
        Answer. It is too early in the technical assessment to determine if
    any actionable items will be recommended to Congress.

        Question 2. The Corps just recently released guidance for section
    1043 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L.
    113-121).
        Question 2.a. Could you describe your experiences with the section
    1043 program and explain how the Corps will operate the provision
    moving forward?
        Answer. Two project have proceeded utilizing Section 1043:
        1.  Clear Creek, TX. A Project Partnership Agreement was executed
    between the Department of the Army and the Harris County Flood Control
    District for the Clear Creek, Texas Flood Risk Management Project in
    June 2019.
        2.  McCook Reservoir. The Project Partnership Agreement for Phase
    II of the McCook reservoir project was executed in January 2019.

        If Section 1043 is amended by Congress to allow the commencement of
    new projects, the Corps will continue to execute the program in
    accordance with the law.

        Question 3. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
    lauded how the Section 1043 program will allow the Corps and non-
    Federal partners to remove major liabilities from the Corps' $100
    billion backlog in authorized projects.
        Question 3.a. Why does the Corps interpret the program to have
    expired if WRDA 18 specifically authorizes an extension of
    appropriations through 2023?
        Answer. Section 1043(b)(7) of WRRDA 2014 provides that the
    authority to commence a project under Section 1043(b) terminates June
    10, 2019. Section 1137 of WRDA 2018 amends the provision to authorize
    appropriations of $25M for each of the fiscal years 2019 through 2023.
    Section 1137 does not amend subsection (b)(7) terminating the authority
    to commence new section 1043 projects after June 10, 2019. Thus,
    Section 1137 allows 1043 projects that were commenced prior to June 10,
    2019, to continue to receive funds (i.e. McCook, and Clear Creek)
    through 2023, but it does not allow for the commencement of new
    projects under Section 1043 after June 10, 2019.

        Question 3.b. Will you commit to reassessing the interpretation of
    this technical error as our intent was clearly to reauthorize this
    program through 2023?
        Answer. A technical correction or amendment is required to be
    enacted in law to extend this authority. The FY 2020 and FY 2021
    Budgets propose legislative language to extend the provision:

            ``Section 1043 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
            Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 113-121) is
            amended--In subparagraph (b)(7), by striking ``5 years'' and
            inserting ``10 years''.''

        Question 4. As you know, non-federal sponsors are required to
    obtain various levels of interest in real property for cost-shared
    projects. However, the requirements of real property acquisition are
    inflexible to the unique characteristics of individual projects. In
    Louisiana, at least 80% of coastal wetlands are privately owned and
    must work cooperatively with the non-federal project sponsors to
    acquire real estate interests that balance the rights of private land
    owners with the needs of the federal government. Section 1115 of WRDA
    2018 was intended by Congress to allow more flexibility in the required
    level of interest in property to complete a project and to allow better
    cooperation with non-federal interests, including private landowners.
    The provision specifically directs the Corps to ``first consider the
    minimum interest in real property necessary to support the water
    resources development project for which such interest is acquired,''
    such as a temporary easement or other interest which ``reduce[s] the
    overall cost'' and ``reduce[s] time to complete such project, and
    minimize conflict with property owners related to such project''.
    Despite the language included in WRDA 2018, the guidance issued to
    implement this section reaffirmed the Corps' existing guidance, ER 405-
    1-12, Chapter 12, which was last updated in 1998.
        Question 4.a. Could you describe any re-evaluation of Chapter 12
    Regulations following the passage of WRDA 2018 and explain why this
    guidance was not altered considering the directives of Section 1115,
    especially as several requirements included in that section are not
    listed factors of consideration in Chapter 12 Regulations.
        Answer. The minimum estates set forth in ER 405-1-12, Chapter 12,
    were coordinated with the Department of Justice and represent the
    typical minimum estates for the various types of projects listed there,
    and are the default and standard estates. However, both Chapter 12, and
    Revised Real Estate Policy Guidance Letter 31, January 11 2019, provide
    a process for proposing a non-standard estate when such an estate will
    support project requirements given the project and its unique
    characteristics. Chapter 12 is currently in the revision process, and
    comments are being solicited from the field as proposed changes to,
    among other things, the minimum estates. Any changes in the minimum
    estates will require, as before, coordination with the Department of
    Justice to ensure that the federal investment is protected and
    landowners are treated equitably and fairly. The federal government
    already requires, as does Chapter 12 and revised Real Estate Policy
    Guidance Letter 31, that the minimum estate necessary to support the
    project be acquired.

        Question 4.b. Does the Corps plan revisions of Chapter 12 in light
    of the Congressional mandates set forth in Section 1115?
        Answer. Chapter 12 is currently in the revision process, and
    comments are being solicited from the field as proposed changes to,
    among other things, the minimum estates.

        Question 5. Subsection (c) of Section 1115 of WRDA 2018
    specifically requires the Secretary to consider procedures to acquire
    or require acquisition of interest in land used by a State.
        Question 5.a. Why does the Corps hold that ``statutory
    restrictions'' alone cannot be justification for lesser property
    interests, particularly if the policy behind the adoption of such local
    restrictions is based on sound policy and in consideration of all
    factors set forth by Congress in Section 1115?
        Answer. The minimum estate necessary for a project depends on the
    project, its requirements and the minimum land interest necessary in
    order to support the project. Although a state could certainly require
    that a greater interest in land be obtained within its boundaries than
    is necessary to support the project, credit for providing that interest
    would still depend on federal law and regulations. State legislation
    cannot require that a lesser interest than is actually the minimum
    necessary to support the project be sufficient for a federal project.

        Question 5.b. What procedures does the Corps have in place to
    determine what other criteria must be met by a non-Federal sponsor to
    justify deviation based on a statutory restriction?
        Answer. While state law restrictions and sponsor preferences are
    taken into account when determining the minimum interest required for a
    project or feature, the Corps cannot approve an interest as the minimum
    interest unless it grants sufficient rights, both in scope and
    duration, to construct, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate and
    restore the project or feature and provides adequate protection to the
    project or feature from incompatible uses.

        Question 5.c. Has the Corps considered whether such policy
    essentially writes state laws off the books and how this might
    jeopardize the Corps' ability to deliver projects or cooperate fully
    with non-federal sponsors who have property acquisitions laws that
    provide no real impediment to the implementation of projects?
        Answer. State law restrictions inconsistent with the Uniform
    Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
    1970, as amended, or that affect non-federal sponsors legal capability
    to acquire the minimum required real property rights for the project
    may have the effect that under state law the necessary minimum land
    interest to support a federal project cannot be obtained. The federal
    government already requires, as does Chapter 12 and revised Real Estate
    Policy Guidance Letter 31, that the minimum estate necessary to support
    the project be acquired. State legislation cannot reduce that
    requirement.

        Question 5.d. Has the Corps adopted any policy, written or
    otherwise, for the handling of developing standard or non-standard
    estates in compliance with Section 1115 mandates and working with non-
    federal sponsors to conform to state policies and laws regarding land
    acquisition per Section 1115? Could you provide a written copy of this
    policy? If not, please explain why and explain whether the Corps
    intends to adopt such policy in the future.
        Answer. No. Any changes in the minimum estates will require
    coordination with the Department of Justice to ensure that the federal
    investment is protected and landowners are treated equitably and
    fairly. Chapter 12 is currently in the revision process, and comments
    are being solicited from the field as proposed changes to, among other
    things, the minimum estates.

        Question 6. In a February 12, 2019, letter addressed to Lieutenant
    General Semonite, the State of Louisiana specifically noted concerns
    with Chapter 12 guidance because of its inflexibility to the needs of
    individual projects, notwithstanding the fact that the guidance was
    last updated in May 1998.
        Question 6.a. What did the Corps do to address the comments made by
    the State of Louisiana through its Coastal Protection and Restoration
    Authority relative to Section 1115?
        Answer. The implementation guidance issued for Section 1115 takes
    into account the comments from the State of Louisiana through its
    Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

        Question 6.b. Are the state's comments addressed in the
    implementation guidance for Section 1115?
        Answer. The implementation guidance issued for Section 1115 takes
    into account the comments from the State of Louisiana through its
    Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

        Question 7. The State of Louisiana also submitted comments on other
    sections of WRDA 2018, including Sections 1111, 1116, 1120, 1143 and
    1176.
        Question 7.a. What effort has the Corps made to address those
    comments and incorporate them into the implementation guidance for WRDA
    2018?
        Answer. Comments received from stakeholders during the public input
    period including the comments provided by the State of Louisiana
    related to the listed provisions were considered as appropriate while
    drafting the implementing guidance.

    Questions from Hon. Thomas Massie to Rob Innis, Plant Manager, Sparrows
      Point, Maryland, Lafargeholcim, on behalf of Waterways Council, Inc.

        Question 1. In your testimony you mention that if you were to ship
    your commodities by truck it equates to over 365,000 additional trucks
    on the road. The locks on the river system are getting up there in age.
    What is something that Congress could do in the upcoming WRDA bill to
    ensure that this critical freight shipping option is available for
    years to come?
        Answer We believe the most important policy change to be included
    in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 is changing the cost
    share for new Construction and Major Rehab of Inland Waterway Trust
    Fund (IWTF) supported projects from the current cost share of 50%
    General Treasury and 50% IWTF, to 75% General Treasury and 25% IWTF. We
    believe this would be the best value to the Nation based on what has
    achieved since 2015.
        Thanks to the good work of the T&I Committee, WRRDA14, contained a
    cost share changed for the remaining cost of the Olmsted project, from
    50% General Treasury and 50% IWTF, to 85% General Treasury and 15%
    IWTF, which allowed for efficient funding to flow for our priority
    projects the last six fiscal years. Since FY2015, we have seen an about
    $400 Million per fiscal year appropriated to IWTF projects. Also in the
    FY2019 Appropriation package there was a one-time change in the cost
    share of the Chickamauga project from 50% General Treasury and 50%
    IWTF, to 85% General Treasury and 15% IWTF.
        As a result of these cost share changes, we have seen the cost of
    completion decrease along with the projects becoming operational
    sooner. Some examples below:
          Olmsted Lock and Dam: Post Authorized Cost Report $3.099
    Billion, the USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $2.841 Billion, a
    cost reduction of $258 Million.
          Lower Monongahela Project: Authorized at $1.23 Billion,
    the USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $1.09 Billion, a cost
    reduction of $221 Million.
          Kentucky Lock Project: Authorized at $1.216 Billion, the
    USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $1.048 Billion, a cost reduction
    of $168 Million.
          Chickamauga Lock Project: Authorized at $758 Million, the
    USACE Cost Estimate at Completion is $669 Million, a cost reduction of
    $89 Million.

        As you can see efficient funding, has led to an estimated cost
    reduction of approximately 12%, or $736 million below authorized cost
    of these four projects.
        The National Economics Benefits (NEB) for these projects being
    completed sooner. Once these projects are operational the country
    receives the economic benefits sooner.
          Olmsted Lock and Dam: $600 Million per year Net Benefits
     4 years equates to $2.4 Billion net benefits that we can
    realize.
          Lower Monongahela Project: $220 Million per year Net
    Benefits  4 years equates to $880 Million net benefits that we
    can realize.
          Kentucky Lock Project: $100 Million per year Net Benefits
     4 years equates to $400 Million net benefits that we can
    realize.
          Chickamauga Lock Project: $21 Million per year Net
    Benefits  4 years equates to $84 Million net benefits that we
    can realize.

        By changing the Cost share to 75% General Treasury and 25% IWTF we
    could realize a cost savings of $736 Million on these projects along
    with an annual Net Benefits of $3.764 Billion.
        Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify the reasoning for
    changing the cost share, on IWTF projects from 50% General Treasury and
    50% IWTF, to 75% General Treasury and 25% IWTF. We believe these
    results are the best value to the nation.

        Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Derek Brockbank, Executive
          Director, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association

        Question 1. Natural infrastructure is a key component of our
    defense system in Louisiana, where we are losing a football field of
    land every 100 minutes due to leveeing the Mississippi River,
    subsidence, erosion, and sea level rise. Our coastal networks of
    barrier islands and wetlands provide a critical line of defense for our
    communities, working as a complement to traditional levees and other
    flood infrastructure to keep communities safe.
        Question 1.a. What are the benefits and hurdles of using natural
    infrastructure alongside or instead of built, hard infrastructure?
        Question 1.b. Do you have any policy or process recommendations to
    ensure smooth coordination between the Corps and non-federal sponsors
    when working to restore and enhance natural infrastructure along the
    coast?
        Answers (a.-b.):
        Natural infrastructure is a key component of coastal risk reduction
    across the United States and the world. ``Ecosystem-based approaches to
    reduce risks from coastal storms, approaches which draw from the
    capacity of wetlands, beaches and dunes, biogenic reefs, and other
    natural features to reduce the impacts of storm surge and waves'' have
    increased in prominence across the country.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bridges, T, et al. ``Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features
    (NNBF) for Coastal Resilience'', ERDC SR, 15-1; 2015. https://erdc-
    library.erdc.dren.mil/xmlui/handle/11681/4769
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) is pleased
    to see greater support for and understanding of the way natural systems
    reduce risk for coastal communities, but we understand natural
    infrastructure alone cannot solve our nation's coastal flood risk, and
    there are challenges to using natural infrastructure in combination
    with ``traditional'' hard infrastructure exist. Additionally, the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a central role in building and
    restoring natural infrastructure, but so do local communities, and
    healthy coastlines and efficient project delivery will take USACE
    coordinating well with local sponsors stakeholders.
        a. Natural infrastructure is most effective when used as part of a
    Multiple Lines of Defense strategy, where ecologically based flood and
    coastal storm risk reduction is combined with non-structural and
    structural solutions to keep people and property safe from coastal
    hazards.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Multiple Lines of Defense. Courtesy of Lake Pontchartrain Basin
                                   Foundation

        Natural infrastructure can provide multiple benefits to
    communities, including a) protection, b) ecologically valuable habitat,
    c) economic vitality, and d) recreation, as outlined in ASBPA's written
    testimony.\2\ The ecological, economic and recreation components are
    particularly important because this is what natural infrastructure
    provides that hard infrastructure cannot. Restoring the natural
    functions of a shoreline and the corresponding community benefits
    should not be treated as lagniappe--a little free bonus--on a flood
    protection project, it should be part of the central purpose of a
    project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Brockbank, D. ``Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
    Hearing Testimony, July 10, 2019'', July 10, 2019 http://asbpa.org/
    wpv2/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TI-Hearing-
    Testimony_Final_ASBPA_Brockbank.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, natural infrastructure can provide protection to hard
    infrastructure by extending its lifespan. For example, a dune system
    with a structural (seawall) buried core, may be designed for the dune
    to withstand a 10-year coastal storm event and the core to withstand a
    100-year coastal storm event. The structure integrity of that seawall
    is likely to last longer since it is not exposed to ongoing corrosive
    effects of saltwater, wind and waves except for when it's exposed
    during coastal storms greater than 10-year events.
        Harder to quantify, but also important are the esthetic and safety
    enhancements natural infrastructure can provide in supplementing hard
    infrastructure. For example, even if a seawall provides a community all
    the flood protection it needs, an exposed seawall adjoining a beach can
    be considered an eyesore and can be dangerous for beach-goers to cross
    or for children to play on. A dune system will maintain the beach
    characteristics that define the community and that residents and
    tourists expect.
        However, there are challenges to combining natural infrastructure
    with hard infrastructure. Most prominently is how hard infrastructure
    can, if not designed properly, negatively impact the viability of
    natural infrastructure. For example a seawall or bulkhead can
    exacerbate the erosion of beach or marsh directly in front of it, due
    to the reflection of wave energy hitting the structure. Even a buried
    wall will adversely impact the beach and dune system as soon as it
    becomes exposed. Similarly, a levee system that restricts interchange
    of fresh and saltwater can fundamentally change the hydrology of a
    coastal marsh system, accelerating marsh loss, changing locations of
    oyster reefs and other biologically based natural infrastructure that
    has a narrow salinity gradient.

        b. One of the biggest structural challenges USACE has in
    coordinating with local project sponsors is its project-based budgeting
    system. Unique among federal agencies, USACE has a budget based nearly
    entirely on project delivery, with very little programmatic or
    unallocated staffing funds. Theoretically, this could help focus the
    USACE to achieve projects. However, in ASBPA's experience, we have
    found that this style of budgeting has led to a) an inability for USACE
    to work with local sponsors in the early stages of project development;
    b) challenges for USACE in working with local sponsors and stakeholders
    once a project (or study) is authorized if it is not funded, and c)
    USACE staff that could best be utilized to do outreach and coordination
    with locals being ``tied'' to projects, rather than learning from local
    communities.
        USACE has an incredible wealth of technical knowledge and
    expertise, but too often this cannot be accessed by non-federal
    sponsors, unless they are actively working on an authorized and funded
    federal project, or have requested support through one of USACE's small
    ``technical assistance programs''.
        Similarly, USACE staff have challenges in providing insight and
    guidance on locally funded natural infrastructure projects, other than
    through the permitting and regulatory process. Local projects, from
    small living shorelines, to major coastal land-rebuilding projects
    could benefit from USACE's engineering review--particularly when they
    are adjacent to and/or impacted by federal projects. USACE can
    sometimes work this type of coordination into the project cost of an
    existing project, particularly if a locally funded project is likely to
    interact with a federal project, but that can appear to drive up the
    cost of the federal project when the real benefit is to the local
    project.
        Unfortunately, at this time ASBPA does not have specific
    recommendations for how to address this issue. Changing the USACE
    budget process is incredibly complicated with many potential
    operational challenges. We encourage the Transportation &
    Infrastructure (T&I) committee to consider how budgeting plays a role
    in the USACE's coordination with local sponsors and stakeholders, and
    consider structural changes to improve the budgeting process. As the
    Committee develops policy ideas, ASBPA would be honored to review and
    make recommendations for how we believe those policies would play out
    for coastal projects.
        Finally, the current interpretation of the ``Federal Standard'' has
    proved challenging for coordination between the Corps and non-federal
    sponsors when working to restore and enhance natural infrastructure
    along the coast. Local project sponsors who are taking the long view of
    managing sediment and know that future ecosystem restoration and
    natural infrastructure projects will need sediment, are too often
    prevented from beneficially using sediment dredged by USACE. Local
    sponsors are stymied by USACE interpretation of least coast disposal,
    that only looks at current costs, and doesn't calculate the value of
    the sediment (or the ``opportunity cost'' of beneficial placement) when
    disposing of dredged material. The solution here is not to
    fundamentally change or get rid of the federal standard, but to ensure
    it is being implemented in a way that considers all future costs for
    sediment needs that could otherwise be saved by beneficially using
    dredge material rather than dumping it offshore.
        Thank you for the questions and we look forward to working with the
    committee to support Natural Infrastructure in a 2020 Water Resources
    Development Act and other legislation coming from the T&I Committee.

      Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D.,
       Director, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps
        Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego

        Question 1. One of the sites being considered by your organization
    is Prado Dam in my region. I also know that all sites are different.
    What are the lessons learned from Lake Mendocino, and how can you apply
    that to other reservoirs, like Prado?
        Answer. The Lake Mendocino FIRO project has taught us many lessons
    that will help us evaluate the potential viability of FIRO at other
    reservoirs.
        a.  If storms that have the potential to produce flooding on the
    Russian River can be predicted well enough 3-5 days ahead, then there
    is potential for 10,000+ acre feet of water to be safely retained
    behind the dam, pending a 5-day forecast of such a storm. This is
    enough water for 10's of thousands of households for a year.
        b.  Floods on this river are cause by atmospheric river storms, and
    there is enough skill in predicting the inflow into Lake Mendocino from
    the precipitation produced by an atmospheric river, that FIRO could be
    used to provide enhanced water supply reliability without adding flood
    risk. Preliminary tests suggest that FIRO may also be able to improve
    flood protection by encroaching into the water supply
    (``conservation'') pool ahead of a storm.
        c.  Tools, including a prototype decision support system, have been
    created for Lake Mondocino that show the risk of an atmospheric river
    striking the region, and of inflow into the reservoir reaching a point
    that requires release of some of the extra 10,000+ acre feet of water
    ahead of the storm. With 5-days lead time, this water released would
    have moved downstream to the ocean, out of harms way and restoring the
    full flood pool in case it is needed for the incoming storm.
        d.  The formation of a steering committee that includes both water
    supply operators, flood control operators, regulators and scientists,
    charged with developing a workplan to carry out a FIRO viability
    assessment can successfully integrate weather, hydrology and climate
    science with engineering, water management and environment expertise to
    carry out the necessary studies to assess the viability of FIRO at that
    reservoir. And that such a committee can develop a culture that enables
    all perspectives to be heard and to make rapid progress on the
    technical problems.
        e.  Such a committee can develop enough credibility that it can
    prepare and submit a major deviation request that passes full review by
    USACE and is carried out as a test.

        All of these lessons apply to Prado Dam, although vital
    characteristics differ from lake Mendocino and require detailed
    technical evaluations. These include the reservoir purpose being
    primarily for flood control and being located in an urban area with
    many people in the flood plain, whereas Lake Mendocino is rural and has
    both a flood control and a water conservation pool. Endangered Salmon
    are a concern for Lake Mendocino, while bird species are the primary
    environmental issue at Prado. The Prado watershed is shorter in length,
    steeper, and significant areas are covered by manmade impervious
    surfaces. Some tools developed to improve weather forecasting for the
    Lake Mendocino area will also prove useful in the region surrounding
    Prado Dam, and elsewhere on the west coast, although additional
    tailoring of the forecasting tools and associated decision support
    system for each watershed will be required. Improved weather
    forecasting will benefit water management throughout the state. Prado
    Dam is being modified to substantially increase its flood control
    capacity and FIRO can feed into a water control manual update that will
    be needed anyhow due to the dam modifications.

        Question 2. Why is forecast informed reservoir operations important
    to consider, especially in the west?
        Answer. Precipitation prediction has long been one of the toughest
    challenges in weather forecasting and was not at a level of skill that
    could justify its consideration in operating major reservoirs. Thus,
    historically, most major reservoirs have been operated based on rules
    focused on ``water on the ground,'' i.e., in snowpack, streams, rain
    gauges or reservoirs, but not on weather forecasts. However, over
    recent decades, weather prediction skill has advanced substantially.
    Enough so to warrant consideration of the potential that now there is
    enough skill in precipitation and streamflow forecasting that
    operations at some reservoirs could safely consider them in day-to-day
    operations. In addition, or possibly partly in response to this
    improvement in forecasting, the USACE recently updated its water
    management engineer regulation to allow for the possible use of
    forecasts in operations. These developments have opened the door to
    explore the possibility of using skillful weather forecasts to enable
    reservoir operations decisions that could both increase water supply
    reliability (without increasing flood risk), as well as increasing
    flood mitigation capacity (without decreasing water supply
    reliability), while also improving environmental outcomes.
        The Western US experiences far more year-to-year variations in
    annual precipitation than elsewhere in the nation, and yet also is home
    to some of the most arid and yet also agriculturally productive, lands
    in the nation. The West is home to both thriving economies and diverse
    ecosystems that are at risk due to water supply reliability issues and
    to flood. The modern water management system does a remarkable job in
    supporting these. In some years this system still struggles when there
    is either too much or too little precipitation, i.e., drought or flood.
    Variations that are projected to become increasingly common and extreme
    as climate changes, thus increasing vulnerabilities and making FIRO a
    potentially useful climate adaptation method. Not only are the
    potential benefits of FIRO in this region immense, it so happens that
    forecasts of the heaviest precipitation events are more skillful in the
    West (during the wet winter season) than anywhere else nationally.
    Science has determined that atmospheric river storms are the cause of
    most major flooding in the West and can provide 25-50% of the annual
    precipitation each year. This allows science to focus on making better
    observations and forecasts of this type of storm, specifically.
    Offering true potential for predictions to reach a level of skill that
    can enable FIRO to be viable at some reservoirs, at least those with
    suitable characteristics and operating conditions.

    Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to F. Martin Ralph, Ph.D., Director,
     Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of
                Oceanography, University of California San Diego

        Question 1. Could you please describe Scripps research work with
    the Yuba Water Agency and California's Department of Water Resources?
    Specifically, can you please explain how this work will complement
    California's and Scripps' work with the Army Corps of Engineers on the
    Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations program, and Yuba Water Agency's
    plans to build the new secondary spillway at their dam, New Bullards
    Bar Dam and Reservoir?
        Answer. Scripps has begun working with Yuba Water Agency (YWA) and
    California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) to develop a technical
    workplan to assess the potential viability of FIRO on the combination
    of New Bullards Bar on the Yuba River (operated by the Yuba Water
    Agency) and Oroville Dam on the Feather River (operated by CDWR).
    Information derived from the FIRO work is envisioned to provide
    substantive input into updating the New Bullards Bar USACE Water
    Control Manual, which was issued in 1972, and this update is expected
    to provide support for potential benefits created from the construction
    of the New Bullards Bar Secondary Spillway. (Background information
    from YWA regarding the purpose and status of the secondary spillway is
    provided at the end of this reply).
        These rivers merge just downstream of the town of Marysville, which
    is in the region of substantial historical floods in 1955, 1986 and
    1997. The project brings local, state and federal agencies together in
    a steering committee to plan and execute an effort that applies
    research and innovation to enhance flood protection and aid water
    management. The project will extend experience with FIRO to include the
    complexities introduced by including two reservoirs, working in a
    region influenced strongly by snow and snowpack and that is located
    well inland from the coast. These factors, along with the sheer size of
    these reservoirs and the fact they are ``Section 7'' reservoirs (i.e.,
    not directly operated by USACE, but where USACE has a key role in
    updating their water control manuals), differ substantially from
    conditions at Lake Mendocino and Prado Dam, where FIRO studies are
    underway. Thus, the Yuba-Feather FIRO project will extend the range of
    conditions explored with USACE in terms of the potential applicability
    of FIRO. In addition to developing the workplan, a handful of
    preliminary technical studies are starting, including research on the
    extreme storms that drive floods in the region, the role of snowmelt in
    such flooding and soil moisture impacts on flow.
        The development of a new spillway for New Bullards Bar, and the
    changes at Oroville that could be triggered from its Comprehensive
    Needs Assessment, each will require updates to their respective water
    control manuals, a step involving USACE. A strategy of the Yuba-Feather
    FIRO effort being envisioned is for it to produce outputs that can feed
    directly into these water control manual updates that would incorporate
    adaptive management methods informed by forecasts. Such an update would
    be intended to introduce greater flexibility for both enhanced flood
    mitigation capacity, as well as increased water supply reliability,
    while benefitting ecosystems (see response to the second QFR from
    Chairwoman Napolitano for a brief description of how FIRO works more
    generally to achieve such goals).
        The following is background information provided to me by Yuba
    Water Agency regarding the secondary spillway:

            ``As a result of the devastating 1986 and 1997 Yuba County
            floods resulting in the loss of life and destruction of
            property, Yuba Water Agency has spent two decades studying and
            making decisions on how to improve flood protection in Yuba
            County. The result has been a decision to build a Secondary
            Spillway that will enable earlier release of flood waters
            entering the reservoir so that there is more flood space to
            handle the peak flood flow. This will result in lower
            downstream flow, thus improving flood protection. Additional
            benefits include a totally independent redundant spillway that
            can handle the flood of record in case the primary spillway is
            inoperable, the capability for having higher storage in dry
            periods that can enhance water supply and the Secondary
            Spillway will enhance dam safety of New Bullards Bar Dam, which
            is the 5th tallest in the US. The YWA board has authorized $11
            million for the design and permitting of the Secondary Spillway
            and the plan is to complete construction by 2025. In this era
            of climatic change, the Secondary Spillway is the best way YWA
            can improve climatic resiliency for the people of Yuba
            County.''

                                    [all]