    [Senate Hearing 116-88]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 116-88

    OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT OF THE SPRING
                       2019 MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FLOODING

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

                                 FIELD HEARING

                                   before the

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                     AUGUST 28, 2019--NORTH SIOUX CITY, SD

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     38-366 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2019

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
                                  ----------

                 Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management,
                            and Regulatory Oversight

                      MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey,
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama                  Ranking Member
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio)  EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
                                         THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex
                                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                AUGUST 28, 2019
                               OPENING STATEMENT

    Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota...     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Helmlinger, Brigadier General D. Peter, Northwest Division
      Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers........................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Remus, John, Chief, Missouri River Basin Water Management
      Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.........................    13

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Levee Breach Status
      and detail, updated August 21, 2019............................    33
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019 Missouri River Flood Event--
      Request for Assistance.........................................    35
    Missouri River Basin Regulated Watersheds........................    36
    Communication: We Each Have a Role...............................    37

    OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT OF THE SPRING
                       2019 MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FLOODING

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2019

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                  Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management,
                                      and Regulatory Oversight,
                                                  North Sioux City, SD.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. at
    City Hall, 504 River Drive, North Sioux City, SD, Hon. Mike
    Rounds (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Rounds. Well, good afternoon. We'll call this
    Subcommittee hearing to order.
        Ladies and gentlemen, this spring, heavy rain and rapid
    snowmelt across the Midwest produced significant flooding along
    the Middle and Lower Missouri River Basin. The latest, August
    1st, 2019, runoff projections from the Army Corps of Engineers
    expect 2019 to be the second highest runoff year on record with
    almost 53 million acre-feet of runoff.
        While the total impact and damage assessments are still
    being conducted, a USDA report has asserted that agricultural
    producers were not able to plant crops on more than 19.4
    million acres in 2019, the most prevented plant acres reported
    since USDA's Farm Service Agency began releasing the report
    over a decade ago.
        We certainly hope there are not many more wet years quite
    as significant as this one; however, when wet years do occur,
    we need to have the ability to manage them.
        Unfortunately, years like 2019 are becoming more frequent,
    near-record levels have occurred 3 out of the last 9 years.
    During periods of extreme weather conditions, the Corps'
    management of the Missouri River plays a critical role in
    mitigating damage. We believe this is best achieved by
    recognizing trends, making accurate projections, and reacting
    accordingly.
        The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has the
    important responsibility to maintain oversight of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers' Civil Works program, which includes
    management of the Missouri River Basin. Today's Subcommittee
    field hearing is an opportunity to hear directly from the
    leaders of the Army Corps' Northwest Division on the
    decisionmaking process used to manage waterflows along the
    Missouri River in light of the flooding in 2019 in the middle
    Basin--the middle portion of the Basin.
        The Corps of Engineers manages the Missouri River Basin
    Mainstem Reservoir System, which includes six dams and
    reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. These
    six reservoirs have a combined maximum capacity of 72.4 million
    acre-feet in controls runoff, more approximately, half of the
    Missouri River Basin.
        The Corps of Engineers administers the system with the
    guidance of the Missouri River Basin Mainstem Reservoir System
    Master Water Control Manual, known as the Master Manual, which
    outlines how the Corps of Engineers will operate the system to
    meet its eight congressionally authorized purposes for managing
    the system.
        These include flood control, navigation, water supply,
    water quality control, irrigation, recreation, hydropower, and
    fish and wildlife.
        In order for the Corps to fulfill its obligation of flood
    control, it is vital that they are equipped with the proper
    tools and the authority to take necessary action. Managing the
    system in accordance with these eight congressionally
    authorized purposes is always a careful balance when
    incorporating the needs and concerns of states in the Lower
    Missouri Basin with concerns of States in the Upper Basin.
        However, this year, States in the upper, middle, and lower
    parts of the system are all asking similar questions: Are we
    doing the best we can to manage the storage capacity and water
    levels of the Missouri River system? What do we need to do
    differently, and how do we make necessary changes to mitigate
    the damages in years of historic runoff? What authorities need
    to be changed, and what are we doing that just doesn't make
    sense anymore when considering that there is a trend of rising
    average runoff?
        As we begin, I want to thank all of the people, the good
    people of the Corps of Engineers, whose job it is to operate
    the system and who are committed to the protection of millions
    of people and billions of dollars in property throughout the
    Missouri River Basin. They live among us and in many cases are
    our friends and relatives and neighbors. Thank you.
        To those individuals, I just want to let you know that the
    fact that we must ask these hard questions, these should not
    cause any doubt that your fellow citizens appreciate the hard
    work that you do every day.
        As I get ready to turn it over to the witnesses for
    testimony, I want to give a quick overview of how this hearing
    will unfold. We will be receiving testimony from Brigadier
    General Peter Helmlinger and Mr. John Remus. And Johnny is the
    Chief of the Missouri River Basin Water Management Division of
    the Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division.
        Now, then, we're going to move into the questions and the
    answers. And additionally, I would just simply note that the
    microphones, as I understand them, are on right now and that
    they will remain on, so you won't have to look for any switches
    in this particular case.
        Again, I want to thank General Helmlinger and Mr. Remus for
    traveling to South Dakota to testify and to participate in this
    hearing, and I look forward to a productive discussion.
        With that, General Helmlinger.

    [[Page 3]]

     STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL D. PETER HELMLINGER, NORTHWEST
            DIVISION COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        General Helmlinger. Senator Rounds, thank you for this
    opportunity to speak with you today about the 2019 flooding
    along the Missouri River Basin.
        And as you mentioned, I am Brigadier General Peter
    Helmlinger, Commanding General for the Northwestern Division,
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and I'm joined by Mr. John Remus,
    Chief of our Missouri River Water Management Division.
        Today we would like to discuss how the Corps has operated
    in the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System to reduce
    flooding during what has been an extremely challenging year,
    and we also want to highlight our three phase recovery effort
    as we work to assess the damage and provide initial repairs so
    that the Lower Basin's levee systems--return those levee
    systems to their original level of protection and work with
    impacted States to identify potential ways to improve flood
    risk management along that reach of the river for future
    events.
        I would first like to acknowledge the widespread
    devastation and serious impacts this spring's Missouri River
    flooding has created for many people. The flooding has
    displaced people in whole communities, damaged infrastructure,
    and shut down commerce.
        Since the flooding began in March, leaders from across the
    Corps and the Administration have visited the region to
    understand the scale of the damage and to assure everyone we
    will do everything within our authorities to help them recover
    from this tragedy.
        The dam and levee systems worked as designed and built.
    Unfortunately, this event was triggered by a very powerful
    storm that hit mostly downstream of the Upper Basin dams, and
    we were largely denied the ability to control the runoff.
        Mr. Remus will discuss the mechanics of the storm and the
    resulting flood. But the runoff quickly overwhelmed the design
    capacity of the levee systems in the Lower Basin, resulting in
    extensive overtopping and breaches along the entire system. As
    a result of the storm, 850 miles of levees in Iowa, and
    Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri were damaged. We are working
    with States and the local levee sponsors to repair the damage,
    but this will take time and your continued support.
        We have approved 64 project information reports thus far,
    enabling us to obtain funding for engineering, design, and
    construction. Our running estimate of the cost to repair
    damages to levees thus far is approximately $1.1 billion, as
    reflected in those 64 completed project information report cost
    estimates. This total will most certainly increase based on 30
    more projected projects, pending approval within the next few
    months.
        As we move forward, however, we should not simply repair
    the damaged levees to their pre-flood conditions, which is all
    we are authorized to do. Instead, we need to use this
    opportunity to prepare a holistic assessment of what
    improvements to the Lower Basin levee system are possible.
        Let me now explain our three phase approach to recovery.
    Our first phase one has been the initial response. This
    includes activities related to identifying and enclosing
    critical levee breaches; and

    [[Page 4]]

    then, to protect vital infrastructure, population centers; and
    to stop breach flows so the river can return to its normal
    banks.
        Omaha and Kansas City Districts began this effort through
    aerial reconnaissance and data collection almost immediately
    after the skies cleared in March. Since then, we have closed
    massive breaches, some 1,000 feet wide and up to 72 feet deep,
    in order to redirect the river into its banks and to enable the
    evacuation of water from the land side of those levees.
        To date, we have closed 13 major breaches, and we are
    conducting engineering and design on 29 levee sections. And we
    recently awarded construction contracts for another two levees,
    that is Levee R-616, near Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; and
    the North Bank Elkhorn River Levee near Pierce, Nebraska.
        Our phase two effort is focused on system recovery. This
    largely consists of our efforts to fully repair damaged levees
    in the Public Law 84-99 program and to bring them back to their
    original level of protection, as well as implement minor levee
    realignments where feasible. We have already received numerous
    requests from levee sponsors for such repairs.
        Some additional levee systems will require water levels to
    recede further before we can accurately assess damages and
    complete engineering and design efforts for those levees.
    Although rainfall in the Midwest is causing waters to remain
    higher than average, field teams are increasingly able to
    access damaged levees and refine their assessments.
        Our phase three effort is our recovery efforts focused on
    future actions and the challenges to reduce flood risk long
    term. The Corps has been meeting with State partners in the
    Basin all summer to discuss developing studies and products
    under planning assistance to States, Flood Plain Management
    Services, Silver Jackets, and other programs. These efforts are
    intended to help our regional and local partners with their
    specific flood risk management data, technical, and planning
    needs in order to inform their recovery efforts and give them
    the tools and knowledge to help make their flood risk
    management systems more resilient.
        We are also discussing pursuing a more comprehensive cost
    shared feasibility study on the Lower Mississippi River--I just
    came from the Mississippi River, please forgive me--along the
    Lower Missouri River that would evaluate both structural and
    non-structural flood risk management measures to reduce flood
    risk and life safety risks, increase system flood conveyance,
    and improve system resilience.
        The geographic scope of the feasibility study would be the
    lower 735 miles of the Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa, to
    the mouth of the Missouri River and its tributaries. The study
    would not examine changes to the Master Manual or other Corps
    Water Control Manuals and would only be looking at flood risk
    management measures with minimal, if any, negative impacts in
    navigation and other authorized purposes of the Missouri River
    projects. Such a study is critical if we are to prepare for the
    next major flood in this Basin.
        And finally, I'd like to highlight the importance of
    communication. Our communication with partners, stakeholders,
    and the public was comprehensive and wide reaching before the
    March flood

    [[Page 5]]

    event, and became even more robust as a result of the flood.
    Throughout the flood event, the Corps took numerous actions to
    ensure effective communication with those affected through a
    variety of forms.
        Since March 14th, Omaha and Kansas City District Commanders
    have personally engaged with stakeholders on a regular basis
    including local, State, and tribal governments, as well as with
    congressional interests, to provide updates on flood conditions
    and recovery actions.
        The Corps also began a daily update to call [unclear] for
    these groups and the media starting March 15th. Daily press
    releases also kept the public informed of changes in risk
    forecast, including information on any changes and releases
    from Gavins Point Dam. Social media platforms, including
    Facebook and Twitter, were also used to provide the latest
    updates to the public.
        Stakeholder meetings, informational briefings, and public
    postings continue today. We understand our duties and
    obligations to communicate with those who are impacted by our
    decisions and operations. We will continue to evaluate how and
    when to maximize the effectiveness of the information that we
    share.
        Senator Rounds, thank you for the opportunity to speak with
    you today. In closing, I would like to emphasize our No. 1
    priority of the Corps in its operations is life and public
    safety. Our current focus remains to protect life and work with
    other Federal agencies, and States, and local authorities to
    help communities recover from this flood and to improve the
    system to reduce flood risk in the future. And sir, I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Helmlinger and Mr. Remus
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Mr. Remus, did you have an opening statement as well?

      STATEMENT OF JOHN REMUS, CHIEF, MISSOURI RIVER BASIN WATER
           MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        Mr. Remus. I did, thank you.
        Good afternoon, Senator Rounds, and thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today.
        I am John Remus, Chief of the Missouri River Basin Water
    Management Division for the Northwestern Division, U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers. My staff and I are responsible for
    regulating the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System.
        As General Helmlinger said, I will discuss the conditions
    that have led to the flooding and our operational responses to
    these conditions.
        However, first, I would like to explain, in general, how
    the system was designed and is operating to provide flood
    control for the Basin. The Corps operates the system consistent
    with the aid authorized purposes of flood control, navigation,
    hydropower, water supply, water quality control, irrigation,
    recreation, and fish and wildlife. The system includes six
    large dams and reservoirs, and

    [[Page 6]]

    comprises the largest reservoir system by storage volume in
    North America.
        While the system is quite large, it is important to note
    that 98 percent of the system storage is upstream of the Gavins
    Point Reservoir; therefore, the system cannot capture and
    manage significant runoff that enters through the river below
    the storage reservoirs. The Corps designed a system to capture
    runoff from mountain and plains' snowpack, and rainfall in the
    Upper Basin that could otherwise, in the absence of the
    reservoirs, result in flooding, and then release that water
    gradually over the year. This provides the maximum amount of
    flood risk reduction while serving all authorized purposes.
        The Corps did not design, nor do we operate, the system to
    carry over floodwater from one year to the next. We operate the
    system in accordance with the 2018 Missouri River Master Water
    Control Manual, consistent with the authorized purposes, while
    maintaining compliance with all Federal laws.
        In large runoff years, such as 2019, or during an extreme
    hydrological event, the flood control objective drives the
    Corps' operational decisions for the system. During average or
    below average runoff years, the Corps operates the system for
    flood control and to need flow targets in the Lower River for
    other purposes, such as navigation.
        As of July 31st, 2019, the runoff in the Upper Basin has
    been 45.3 million acre-feet, surpassing the 42.2 million acre-
    feet in 2018, making 2019 already the third highest runoff on
    record. The projected--as of August 1st, 2019, the projected
    runoff in the Upper Basin is 52.9 million acre-feet, which, if
    realized, would be the second highest runoff on record. Only
    the 2011 runoff of 61 million acre-feet would be greater.
        My office uses a number of tools to inform our operations
    and one of those tools is the Short-Range Reservoir Operation
    Forecast, that is more commonly referred to as the 3-week
    forecast. The information contained in the 3-week forecast
    includes average daily flows; average daily--excuse me, average
    daily inflows; average daily releases; reservoir elevations;
    and hydropower generation for each of the six Mainstem
    projects, as well as a forecasted total storage volume.
        The 3-week forecast is issued every Wednesday, and more
    often if conditions require it. The 3-week forecast is
    developed based on the combination of observed tributary flows,
    Missouri River flows, and the long range runoff forecast. The
    long range runoff forecast is updated at the beginning of each
    month, and more often if needed, and is based on the current
    conditions and long range trends in the Missouri River Basin.
    The 3-week forecast is usually the tool to manage risk on a
    systemwide basis.
        The flooding that has occurred and continues to occur on
    the Lower Missouri is not the result of a single event, but
    rather a series of events. I will briefly discuss these events.
    In March, a bomb cyclone dumped 2 to 4 inches of rain on top of
    a plains snowpack that contained 2 to 8 inches of snow water
    equivalent. Furthermore, the soils in this area were very wet
    and frozen to depths exceeding 2 feet. This combination of
    condition caused a rapid snowmelt and extreme runoff.

    [[Page 7]]

        The runoff, primarily from the Niangua River, require
    releases from Gavins Point Dam to be increased to 100,000 cubic
    feet per second for a short period of time to prevent
    overtopping the gates. The tributary inflow from below the
    system caused levees downstream of Omaha, Nebraska, to overtop
    and fail. During this event, and for several days following
    this event, releases from Fort Randall Dam were shut off
    completely in an attempt to lessen the flooding downstream of
    the system.
        The bomb cyclone also produced an additional 2 to 4 inches
    of snow water equivalent in South Dakota and North Dakota. In
    April, the plains' snowpack began to melt relatively rapidly,
    leading to rapidly rising pools at Oahe and Fort Randall
    Reservoirs, which required higher than average releases from
    these projects. Incremental inflows between Fort Randall and
    the Gavins Point Dam remain high due to continued rainfall,
    primarily in the Niangua River Basin. These circumstances
    required increased system releases from Gavins Point.
        In May, rainfall in South Dakota was 300 to 500 percent of
    average. Runoff into the Oahe and Fort Randall Reservoirs was
    500 percent and 950 percent of average, respectively. This
    resulted in the pools at Oahe and Fort Randall entering their
    exclusive flood control zones. The pools at Oahe and Fort
    Randall remained in exclusive flood control zones for several
    weeks, and Oahe still remains near the exclusive flood control
    zone.
        These circumstances required minimal releases from Fort
    Peck and Garrison Dams and higher than average releases from
    Oahe and Fort Randall in order to manage the pools without
    increasing flood risk downstream or creating any dam safety
    concerns. System releases reached 75,000 cfs in May.
        In the Lower Basin, the rainfall in May was widespread and
    above normal, particularly in Kansas, which experienced the
    wettest month on record. This precipitation, combined with the
    sustained higher than average system releases, led to flooding
    on the Missouri River from Blair, Nebraska, to the mouth.
        The mountain snowpack, which was nearly average for the
    most part, melted in June. Above average precipitation in the
    Upper Basin added to the runoff. June runoff in the Upper Basin
    was 160 percent of average, causing the pools at Fort Peck and
    Garrison to enter their exclusive flood control zones. This, in
    turn, required the average daily outflows from Fort Peck,
    Garrison, Oahe, and Fort Randall to be increased. At the
    beginning of June, the system releases were 75,000 cubic feet
    per second and were reduced to 70,000 cubic feet per second as
    their incremental flows from the Niangua River declined.
        In the Lower Basin, the rainfall in June continued to be
    above average. This precipitation, combined with the sustained
    higher than average system releases, led to the flooding on the
    Missouri River from the confluence of the Platte River to the
    mouth.
        The July runoff in the Upper Basin was 213 percent of
    average. The Fort Peck and Garrison pools remained in their
    exclusive flood control zones for the entire month. The system
    releases at Gavins Point were maintained at 70,000 cubic feet
    per second. The rainstorms, particularly in Kansas and
    Missouri, resulted in higher than average inflows from
    tributaries.

    [[Page 8]]

        For the first 3 weeks of August, runoff in the Upper Basin
    has trended above the forecast. If this trend continues, the
    system releases of 70,000 cubic feet per second will need to be
    sustained well into September and possibly longer in order to
    evacuate all the water currently stored in the designated flood
    control zones.
        Due to extreme runoff in 2018 and 2019, our operational
    decisions for the last 18 months have been driven by life
    safety and loss of property concerns. During this critical
    period, our principal and sole focus has been on the flood
    control purpose of the system. For example, considerations
    related to the endangered species, the endangered fish and
    birds in the Mainstem did not influence our reservoir
    operations during this time.
        I appreciate this opportunity to be here today and look
    forward to answering your questions.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, sir.
        I've got a series of questions. Normally when we're in
    Washington, we're limited, each member, to 5 minutes. And then,
    after that, you go around until you're done and then you start
    over again. These gentlemen aren't that fortunate today because
    I'm the only one here, and that means that I'm just going to
    continue on for a while.
        [Laughter.]
        But I've got a couple formal questions that I want to work
    my way through, then I'm going to break it down and actually
    have a conversation with you about how we make this thing
    better long term.
        General Helmlinger, you command the Division and have
    oversight of the District that will field the snowpack
    monitoring system in the Upper Missouri River Basin. This
    capability was authorized in the 2014 Water Resources
    Development Act. It's also known as the WRDA and has long been
    a priority of mine.
        I had language included in the 2016 WRDA, a bill that
    directed the U.S. Army Corps to be the lead agency for
    coordinating the soil moisture and snowpack monitoring network
    in the Upper Missouri River Basin. I was also able to have an
    amendment included in the 2017 Senate Energy and Water
    Appropriations Bill that would have provided the Corps with $2
    million to begin implementation of the snowpack monitoring
    program.
        The snowpack monitoring system will provide your water
    management team with more precise information on the volume of
    water entering the system, which will enable them to make
    better decisions on reservoir releases. This is something that
    was recommended in the 2011 flood review and will make the
    citizens of every State in the entire Missouri River Basin
    safer and more secure. And by the way, that was a Corps of
    Engineers' recommendation.
        General Helmlinger. Yes.
        Senator Rounds. As I am sure you are aware, I have been
    working very closely with Assistant Secretary of the Army, R.
    D. James, to assure that lack of funding will not be a factor
    in the implementation of the system over the next 2 years.
        John is smiling over there, I see.
        [Laughter.]

    [[Page 9]]

        Senator Rounds. Funding for the initial procurement of the
    equipment was put in place months ago. Major General Spellmon
    gave me his commitment to personally review the plan at a
    hearing in March, and this will be a priority topic for my
    meeting with the Chief of Engineers next month.
        As the Commander of this area of operations, though, can
    you provide us with an update of where we currently stand with
    respect to reaching the execution milestones of implementing
    the system, and can you tell me when we expect to install and
    be receiving data from the snowpack monitoring system?
        General Helmlinger. Yes, Senator. So, first, let me thank
    you for championing this effort because it is an important
    project that will improve our ability to forecast runoff, and
    therefore, continue to ensure the safety of the entire system.
        As you recognize, Senator, when we first received the
    authority, we did not have the appropriations with it. But we
    now have funds supporting it, and we're currently developing
    our plan for implementation. My District Commander, Colonel
    John Hudson, will be able to brief you in detail in October
    once we complete our detailed plan, as to the scope, the cost,
    and the schedule for implementation.
        But I'd like to share with you now just the broad concept
    to implement that. So, we are pursuing this in a three phase
    effort. The first phase is the quick win and what we can do
    soonest, and that's to add additional sensors to the existing
    mesonet sites across the region. They are across five different
    States. There are approximately 180 existing sites across the
    region, and our first plan is to add sensors to those
    locations.
        Our second phase, then, is to focus on the Cheyenne River
    Basin, to install the snowpack and moisture sensors along that
    Basin as a priority effort. Once we finish with that Basin,
    we'll complete the rest of the region.
        The end state is to have these stations installed--500, 600
    stations installed across the region. The implementation time
    will take several years to implement on that, and I appreciate
    that you're championing for funding for this.
        But a lesson that we learned from New York is we don't want
    to rush into this. We want to take the lessons learned as we
    implement our first stations, so that we can incorporate those
    into follow on ones. But we'll brief you again in October on
    our comprehensive plan for this.
        Senator Rounds. Well, I know that the equipment is being
    tested at this point at South Dakota State University, and so I
    know that we're moving forward with the project, but it leads
    into my next question a little bit, and I think we're talking
    about the same approach. But there's a maxim in the Army that
    says that you should be working smarter, not harder. And I
    think that's an appropriate thing to be looking at here, the
    Corps of Engineers in this particular issue, as well.
        I've been told that there is a great opportunity to
    leverage the existing monitoring stations operated by
    universities in the Upper Missouri River Basin. And I'm not
    sure if that's the same grouping that you're referring to, but
    I'm very happy to hear, if that is the case, that you are
    pursuing that at this time. I also understand

    [[Page 10]]

    that they are capable of being upgraded to meet the standards
    that we would need in this particular case.
        I just want to make sure that if that is the case, whether
    this is the same system that I'm referring to that's operated
    by the university system that you're referring to as well?
        General Helmlinger. If Mr. Remus can assist me in this.
        Mr. Remus. Yes, Senator, South Dakota has a mesonet,
    Nebraska does, North Dakota has the same thing. It's not called
    a mesonet. They are basically soil moisture monitors on sites.
        Senator Rounds. Right.
        Mr. Remus. We plan to upgrade the soil moisture monitoring
    where needed and then add to the snowpack to those sites. And
    we're going to count very heavily on the universities to help
    us there.
        The South Dakota State report is finalized, and we do have
    that final report in, which really--the testing of the
    equipment is over. Now we know what we need, what's the best
    equipment to get. So, that's the next phase is getting that
    equipment.
        The difficulty with that is that this isn't something you
    go to RadioShack and buy. This is some fairly sophisticated
    equipment. There is just, you know, the supply issue there. So,
    that's going to be the initial limiting factor there.
        And as General Helmlinger said, we've consulted the State
    of New York. We put in a snowpack and soil-moisture monitoring.
    They were very similar to what we've come up with. And their
    lesson learned was: Do it; learn what you need to learn, and
    keep going; don't try and do it all in 1 year, because they put
    it in all in 1 year. Their costs went way up, and then they
    went back and redid it. So we're----
        Senator Rounds. Well, I'm pleased, and my understanding is
    that this is the same system that I'm referring to. It also
    sounds to me, though, that one of the issues would have been if
    we were not using that separate system that's already installed
    out there as locations, we may very well have had a
    geographical placement problem that we now can, basically, look
    at perhaps being not a problem in terms of a slow down, what's
    regarding to finding and getting permission to place. And some
    of those have already been placed. And now this is a matter of
    upgrading and getting these up to the systems' capability that
    we need in order to get these appropriate measurements
    completed. Is that correct?
        Mr. Remus. That's correct. And as General Helmlinger said,
    there's approximately 180 mesonet sites over five States in the
    Upper Basin. We don't know if all of those 180--plus or minus--
    sites are going to be adequate for snowpack monitoring. So,
    we're going through evaluating those. We think that most of
    them will be.
        So, it gives us a good start while we get the process in
    place for acquiring other areas. So, it's--I don't want to say
    it jump starts, but it gives us a little bit of a head start
    here while we're learning some of the other things we need to
    learn.
        Senator Rounds. Well, just for the benefit, we've had a
    mountain pack measuring system up and operational for years.
    And it has been consistent, and it does a very good job of
    allowing the Corps

    [[Page 11]]

    to give them a measure of what their mountain snowpack has
    been.
        But in most recent years, the plains' snowpack has been a
    significant part of the challenge. And one, because in many
    cases it occurs and changes rapidly in the spring of the year,
    which is when most of our moisture is received. But it limits
    their ability right now to be able to determine how quick or
    how much there is for plains' snowpack to add to the mountain
    snowpack melt.
        And what we've been trying to do now for a number of years
    is to get this implemented. And I'm very pleased to hear that
    this is in a position to be expedited with the use of the
    existing, already installed system that needs to be upgraded.
    And that we may very well not have to work our way through
    trying to find additional locations, in terms of where those
    180 sites that might be available for us here, that would
    significantly reduce the amount of trouble in trying to find
    new geographical locations to install these plains' sites. Is
    that a fair statement?
        Mr. Remus. It'll give us a head start on that, sir.
        Senator Rounds. OK.
        Mr. Remus. On the other half of your question, how soon
    will we be getting data? When we install a site, we're going to
    be getting data from that site the next day. So, as we install
    these this fall and into the winter, we should be seeing data
    from those the next day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration has already agreed to manage the database for
    us, so.
        Senator Rounds. Very good.
        And General Helmlinger, historical average runoff into the
    Missouri River system, based on 120 years of recorded data, is,
    as testimony has already indicated, just over 25 million acre-
    feet. However, over the past 10 years, the average runoff into
    the Missouri River system is 33.5 million acre-feet, and this
    does not include 2019, which projects to be the second highest
    year runoff ever recorded and more than doubles the average
    annual runoff.
        Yet in March of this year, your projected total runoff was
    28.4 million acre-feet for the year. As of August 1st, the
    total runoff was already 52.9 million acre-feet, which is 186
    percent over your March estimate.
        And this is not a new trend. In 2011, the Corps projected
    29.8 million acre-feet of runoff, yet the actual total runoff
    was 61 million acre-feet, 145 percent over the March estimate.
    Last year, those numbers were 29 million acre-feet projected
    and 42 million acre-feet actual, 145 percent over.
        And I've got some charts up here, and I just want to point
    out, just in terms of these wet years, the difference between
    what you're projecting, then, maybe versus--what, this is the
    third one over, the one closest to me, showing the annual
    runoff--over--above Sioux City in terms of the projections
    versus the actuals.
        In your estimation, are there improvements that can be made
    to your method for predicting runoff, and can those changes be
    made today, or will they require an update to the Master
    Manual?
        And Mr. Remus, I know that you follow this regularly. Your
    3-week projections are typically released once a week and tend
    to be the most accurate in the first few days after the
    projection, naturally. How difficult would it be to put out
    those projections more

    [[Page 12]]

    often, and would it be worthwhile to do? And to what extent are
    the 3-week forecasts, in an effort to provide transparency in
    decisionmaking, compare to being methods of producing the
    decisions with regard to waterflow, or are they the same thing?
        General Helmlinger.
        General Helmlinger. Well, Senator, so I'll begin. And the
    water events in the Midwest are becoming more frequent and
    intense. The National Weather Service has documented it.
        We do incorporate each year's weather pattern into our
    total running record of 128 years--121 years that--and we
    compare--and so we adjust our new average baseline every year
    based on that. But we are making incremental improvements every
    year as we get more data on there.
        One of our other improvements will be, as you've alluded
    to, is the installation of the soil moisture and snowpack
    monitoring. We'll get more timely data on that. But for more
    detailed feedback on our projections, I have to turn to Mr.
    Remus.
        Mr. Remus. I just have to start with when we develop our
    annual runoff forecast beginning in December, we look at the
    conditions in the Basin, what we call water on the ground,
    that's snow; what we know about the mountain snowpack; what we
    know about the plains' snowpack; soil conditions.
        And we look at the Climate Prediction Center's long range--
    I don't want to call it a forecast. It's their outlook as far
    as is it going to trend toward a wetter or a dryer 3 months, or
    is it equal chances, is what they call the we don't really know
    type situation. And that's how we build our runoff forecast.
        We don't, you know, try to fit it to some average or some
    curve. We go with our conditions there. And an example of that:
    This year our March runoff forecast was 28.4 million acre-feet,
    which is, you know, about 3 million acre-feet above normal. And
    that was based on the fact that on March 1st, the plains'
    snowpack was about average. The bomb cyclone added quite a bit
    of water there, the mountain snowpack was about average, and we
    had wet soil conditions.
        So, we figured in the long range outlook was equal chances:
    Maybe it's dry; maybe it's wet. We don't know. So, that's how
    we build our runoff forecast on April--or excuse me, March 1st
    this year. We only say, well, does it averag e a little more, a
    little less. We look at the conditions on the ground.
        Senator Rounds. Let me just--because there's part of this
    which I don't understand yet, and this is General Helmlinger,
    in your letter to Stakeholders and Concerned Citizens that
    accompanied the 2018-2019 Annual Operating Plan to explain that
    the Operating Manual creates guidelines by applying the Master
    Manual to, and I quote this, ``computer simulations of the
    reservoir system regulation assuming five statistically derived
    inflow scenarios based on an analysis of water supply records
    from 1898 to 2011.'' Now, this is in 2018.
        Data show that average runoff into the system in the years,
    these scenarios, but disregarding years 2012 through 2018, 13
    percent higher than the average runoff into the system.
    Additionally, if you look at the runoff just from the past 10
    years, runoff average

    [[Page 13]]

    is, over that time, is 33.5 million acre-feet, 25 percent above
    the historical average.
        Why does the Corps project, do they use projections that
    disregard runoffs totals that we accumulate after the 2012 year
    from their analysis? And additionally, why doesn't the Corps
    use trending runoff averages?
        And General, if you want John to answer that, that's fine.
        Mr. Remus. We use the process I explained to you and then
    to bracket that with what would be an upper quartile or an
    upper decile, or a lower quartile or lower decile runoff year,
    and that's where we use the statistical averages to move--once
    we develop our annual runoff projection, our forecast, then we
    use statistics to say, well, you know, statistically, an upper
    decile would add this many million acre-feet or so. That's how
    we----
        Senator Rounds. Sir, are you telling me that you are taking
    into account from 2012 to 20--no?
        Mr. Remus. Now, I'm getting to that.
        Senator Rounds. OK.
        Mr. Remus. The reason why we ended at 2012 is there's the
    Bureau of Reclamation develops what we call holdouts. So,
    basically, it's irrigation diversion.
        So it's a depletion from the reservoirs or from the runoff
    in the system. They only update that every--about every 10
    years, so they're due to do that again in 2020. So, that's why
    we really don't have any--and because we have to use those same
    statistics from the Bureau in our holdouts.
        We don't--you know, just because 2019 is going to be a very
    large runoff year, that doesn't mean 2020 will be a large
    runoff year.
        Senator Rounds. Well, that's what I want to get into this a
    little bit.
        Mr. Remus. Because--2011 was the record, and 2012 was a
    drought.
        Senator Rounds. Yes.
        Mr. Remus. So we----
        Senator Rounds. But let's look at this just a little bit
    because I want to go into the fact that--well, let's just--take
    a look at the trends that have occurred, and I'm going to point
    out beginning with my slide, the farthest one away from you,
    the Annual Runoff Above Sioux City, Iowa.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Rounds. This is a Corps' chart. The blues are where
    we have above average; the browns are where it's below average.
    There's a consistency to the inconsistency.
        There's wet periods, and then they move into a dry period,
    and then back into a wet.
        Now, granted, it is cyclical. There's a clear cyclical.
    We've broke it down right next to it, and I've handed out, I
    think, charts of the annual runoff. This is above Sioux City,
    Iowa. How come 1898 to 2019?
        And I'm just going to work through this because I think
    this is worth looking at. From 1898 to 1929, the average was
    27.53. From 1930 to 1941, dry period, average 15.64. From 1942
    to 1953, wet

    [[Page 14]]

    year, 27.25 was the average runoff. From 1954 to 1961, down to
    18.33, dry year. Up again to the next trend.
        From 1962 to 1986, 27.46, above average. And then right
    back down to 17.81 on 1987 to 1992. And then back, turned
    around again, now we have a trend from 1993 to 1999; we're at
    34.20 million acre-feet that have been received. And then right
    beginning in 2000, we go down for 7 years in drought cycle. And
    then coming back up again in 2008 to 2019, we're back up to
    34.46.
        What I'm pointing out is there is a consistency to these
    trending years. And yet, we always move if we're in dry years,
    we assume back to average. And in wet years, we still assume
    back to average when we start out, even if the trend is moving
    wetter or if the trend is moving dryer.
        And it would appear to me that it would give you a lot
    bigger tool chest if you could, rather than always assuming
    average, which it appears that you do when you begin your
    forecast, if you could make the assumption that we are in a wet
    cycle. Or if we are in a drought--what, because I think the
    same formula or the same approach should work whether you're
    talking a dry year or a wet year. There's going to be a time
    period in which we're going to have a drought appear. When that
    drought comes, we don't want everybody saying, gee, everything
    is always assumed wetter.
        But if there is a change in there--because right now when
    you're average, there's only a couple times that you're
    actually correct in your estimates, and that's during the
    change in the cycle, up or down. But is there a reason, or is
    there a possibility that in this day and age with more and more
    resources available to us, that we can actually begin trending
    earlier in the year whether we need to be releasing amounts of
    water from the reservoirs earlier at a higher rate, and during
    dry years, recognizing that in order to conserve that water for
    a long term purpose, upstream and downstream, that we release a
    lower amount during those dry years. I'm just asking the
    question----
        Mr. Remus. Can you explain what you mean by trending to
    average?
        Senator Rounds. Yes. My understanding right now is that--
    and I can go all the way back--when I was working with this
    Governor, we had discussions about the fact that we had
    droughts in South Dakota. And there was a time period in which
    out of our reservoir systems where the Missouri River was
    actually back, in some case, into the original banks of the
    Missouri River, particularly up in the Fort Yates area in North
    Dakota.
        During that time period, we chased water. We had water
    reservoirs or we had water intakes for the Cheyenne River
    Indian Reservation and so forth. And we actually had to extend
    down in deeper into the Mainstem of the Missouri because the
    water levels were being depleted because at that point we were
    still pushing water out, not at a normal rate, but it took us
    an extended period of time before we started to reduce because
    we had lower levels than anticipated as average.
        But during that same time period, we were pushing out more
    water than what was coming in over an extended period of time.
    In doing so, we put a lot of folks in the Upper Basin at risk.
    At the same time, during times of wet periods, now we have an
    aver

    [[Page 15]]

    age that we appear to be using to start out with each year, but
    we're not recognizing early on that there is significant
    snowpack.
        In fact, this year we had multiple conversations with the
    offices where folks on the ground up in the Upper levels were
    saying, We got lots of snowpack. We got lots of moisture up
    here. Why aren't we at least starting to release some water
    because we've got a huge amount that we're going to be storing
    up here.
        And yet it appeared that we weren't in a position to be
    able to respond and average that water out, so that you don't
    end up with an increase in the amount of water coming down from
    the Missouri River at a time, in which it sure would have been
    nice if we could have slowed down the release during a time of
    very high water coming in from the Platte and other locations.
        Mr. Remus. Are you talking about more of the water we have
    stored?
        Senator Rounds. Yes.
        Mr. Remus. OK. All right. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds. Because that's really the only tool that
    you have. And let's face it, the bomb cyclone that hit this
    time around where the vast majority of it impacted Gavins Point
    and below, Gavins Point is really not a flood control device.
    It's a regulating device, but it doesn't have storage capacity
    in it. Whatever comes into it really has to come out of it.
        And everything down below that, the flood control devices
    you've got, the levees and dikes and so forth that you have,
    they can control some. But when you were as impacted as you
    were this particular year, you really don't have a lot of tools
    available to you, other than what you could stop from coming
    through from the Upper Mainstem--the reservoirs.
        If those reservoirs would have had perhaps just a slightly
    less amount in, recognizing that we're in a wet sequence, there
    may very well have been a time there in which you could have
    retained more for a period of time, or if you started early
    enough, released a higher percentage rate coming through during
    this wet cycle period so that you didn't have larger amounts
    coming through during a time in which you have the, for lack of
    a better term, the Oh, crap moment when we have the bomb
    cyclone. And this year, I recognize, clearly, you had more
    water down there than you could ever handle with the limited
    amount of capacity in the Gavins Point reservoir system itself.
    It just simply isn't there.
        But most certainly to be able to slow down into, as we say,
    meter that water out, it seems to me would have been very
    helpful in the locations down below, and particularly in the
    Omaha area, if we could have slowed down some of the releases
    coming out--for a longer period of time. And I just want your
    thoughts in terms of being able to look at, rather than average
    amounts, actually trending those a little bit earlier in the
    year that it's occurring.
        Mr. Remus. Well, as you know, Senator Rounds, no matter how
    warm the winter gets in Pierre, South Dakota, you get ice on
    the river below Oahe Dam.
        Senator Rounds. Yes.
        Mr. Remus. And ice below Oahe, ice in the Bismarck-Mandan
    area, it really limits our ability to evacuate storage in the
    wintertime. If we push it, and right up to the limit, we can
    maybe get

    [[Page 16]]

    25,000 cubic feet per second out of Garrison or Oahe. But
    that's running at awfully close to the limit where we are
    risking ice jams, which then you're not releasing anything, and
    you're flooding people in the time when it's going to put water
    in their front yard or their home and freeze.
        So, we really can't begin to overdraft or do preemptive
    releases until the ice is gone, which is usually around the
    first of March in the Pierre, Fort Pierre area; in the middle
    of March up in Bismarck and which----
        Senator Rounds. Let me ask a question on that, though,
    because----
        Mr. Remus. Yes. OK.
        Senator Rounds. What do you use for your ice dates in the
    Upper Basins?
        Mr. Remus. In the Bismarck-Mandan area, it generally is the
    second week in December. Now this last year, December was a
    warm month all over the Basin. We had 80 degrees days in
    December. So, but they still had ice there, and it did freeze
    over eventually.
        So, you can't count on a warm December or a warm February.
    So, we have to plan to have the system down to maybe a million
    extra feet because that's what we can get out of the----
        Senator Rounds. Yes.
        Mr. Remus [continuing]. With the ice. So, we really need to
    know if we're going to start overdrafting that. We need to
    really kind of know that in July, really. Particularly last
    year because we had a very high runoff. If we were going to
    plan for 52.9 million acre-feet this year, we would have to
    have known that very early to make it around, so.
        Senator Rounds. I won't belabor the point. But the reason
    why I ask the question, you do have a certain amount in which
    you most certainly do let out, whether it's 5,000 cubic feet or
    7,000 or 9,000 or 12,000. But whatever that is, that's the
    amount you need to maintain during that ice period.
        But if you know that in the later part of December, that
    might very well be 5,000 more or 7,000 more for that same time
    period because your ice is going to form on whatever you do put
    out. That's my question.
        Mr. Remus. The ice will probably not form. It's really on
    how much you could freeze in. And we try to freeze in at higher
    stages, and we just can't get it to freeze in, particularly in
    the Bismarck-Mandan area, about 25,000. And a little bit has to
    do with the backwater effect from Lake Oahe and Bismarck and
    Lake Sharpe in the Pierre, Fort Pierre area.
        Senator Rounds. Very good.
        Look, thank you, and I do appreciate that.
        Just a couple more questions that I've got on this that I
    kind of wanted to work my way through. And that is, is with
    regard to the infrastructure down below, the folks in the room
    here today, I think, have concerns about some of the
    infrastructure and how you're going to work this.
        And General Helmlinger, you discussed this a little bit
    with regard to the three phase approach that you want to do.
    But I want to work my way through this a little bit.

    [[Page 17]]

        And I just want to begin with talking about Public Law 84-
    99. In your professional military judgment, what do you need to
    get us out of this continual loop where the Corps rebuilds at
    the same standard after every significant flood even though you
    know that the improvements should be made to the system?
        Are the constraints that Public Law 84-99 place on
    rebuilding too restrictive to permit an innovative
    reconstruction effort? Do you need additional authorities?
    Should any existing authorities be changed? How much does the
    Federal cost share and requirement from, we're at 86, slow down
    the pace of producing reports and engineering analysis that
    might be integrated into contracts that very well could provide
    a more resilient system?
        And are there common sense improvements that you could add
    to designs right now with--that would not exceed the
    constraints of the law or the policy that Congress would have
    to help you with? In other words, where are we going with--
    you've seen it this year where you had a bomb cyclone hit. It
    inundated some of those areas. If you were to do them today,
    you would do them differently if you were starting from
    scratch?
        Is there a restraint within the law that limits your
    ability? And is there something that Congress needs to do? Or
    is this the case of we're doing the best we can, and until such
    time as we have all phases ready to go, and there's really not
    much we can do?
        General Helmlinger. Senator, that's an excellent question.
    And first let me address that Public Law 84-99 and emphasize
    that it is an expeditionary tool to rebuild after disaster
    strikes. And it's a very useful tool used on many situations.
    There are some areas where it's cumbersome on that. One area
    that was recently lifted on that was the flexibility that was
    given through WRDA 2016, section 1176, which allows for non-
    Federal sponsors to pay for betterments on what repairs.
        And that there are examples where rebuilding to the
    preexisting conditions may not be the preferred alternative for
    the non-Federal sponsor. And this now gives them an opportunity
    to pay for the difference between what the Federal Government
    would pay and what they are willing to pay, and [unclear] the
    protections required.
        This, I think, this was driven off of some of the repairs
    that were necessary in Puerto Rico where, very fragile, and the
    structure was repaired, and we invested a lot of money to
    repair what was there, but what was there was fragile to begin
    with. So, if you could put a little bit more money into it for
    a more robust and resilient design, you won't have to spend
    money twice on the same repairs. So, first I'd say, we've been
    given a very flexible and useful tool with Section 1176 on
    that.
        One authority that I would recommend as useful, which does
    not exist right now, is the authority for reimbursement of non-
    Federal sponsors for the Federal share of rebuilding when we
    know that that non-Federal sponsor has the financial and
    technical abilities to do the repairs themselves. At this
    incident alone, we had some non-Federal sponsors that had the
    funding, had the technical know-how and the capability to get
    to work right away to restore their levees. But because of----

    [[Page 18]]

        Senator Rounds. Are you talking in this case counties or
    municipalities or other public entities?
        General Helmlinger. Yes, sir, other public entities there,
    but we have to wait for our funds to come online so the Federal
    Government can do the work. But it would be I believe,
    effective--it would be more efficient and faster if this work
    had met all of our criterias, only we didn't have the Federal
    funds on hand, that they could accomplish the work and that we
    would reimbursement them for our Federal share afterwards.
        Senator Rounds. Let me ask this. With regard to where the
    levees are and the protections that are in place right now in
    the Middle Basin areas, areas where literally the only
    protection has been the building of these levees and so forth,
    are there areas right now, and I know that you've indicated--
    first of all, you've needed to do some remedial work on those
    today. Does that limit, then, your ability to go back in and
    analyze or do the studies that would suggest different
    placement is, perhaps, not appropriate today? Do you have the
    tools and resources to reevaluate the location of those? And
    can you talk a little about what the public discussions are
    that go on prior to a decision along that line being made?
        General Helmlinger. So, Senator, we have the authority to
    do minor realignments on levees where it makes sense. You may
    have one case where you had a large scour hole that covered a
    long length, and it may be a shorter distance to rebuild a new
    levee behind that scour hole so you don't have to fill that
    back in with material. And in doing that, we're actually
    improving the conveyance of the river because we're putting
    more distance between the two sides of the river and the levees
    or the banks that may be there. So that's an example of a minor
    improvement.
        But I believe, you know, what you're alluding to is if we
    needed to do a larger realignment on that. We don't have that
    authority or ability right now to do that. Where possible, in
    our three phase implementation on here, we're trying to
    eliminate redundant work. If we can accomplish something in
    phase one that won't have to be redone or realigned in phase
    two or in our long term plan, we want to expedite those
    decisions so that we can get to the long term solution up
    front.
        But we are pressed against a clock, and that clock is next
    year's flood season. So we want to work with our partners here
    to make sure that we've got a minimum of 10- to 25-year flood
    protection for next season so that we're prepared. And due to
    the timeliness of the situation, we're not really able to get
    into that.
        Further, I want to talk about one of the cautions of P.L.
    84-99 and prompt rebuilding is where it may seem intuitive to
    make a broader change on that. We really need time to do our
    due diligence and study the second and third order effects of
    that.
        Senator Rounds. And that's part of why I wanted to it bring
    up because it seems to me that if I was a landowner or someone
    living along this part of the river, I'd be concerned that, No.
    1, if the flood control systems that are in place right now are
    not adequate, I may very well have had property damage.
        General Helmlinger. Yes.
        Senator Rounds. But second of all, if I live along this
    river and I have property along this river, I would be
    concerned about wheth

    [[Page 19]]

    er or not I may lose some of my property based upon a new
    recommendation. It seems to me, and I'm not sure whether you're
    prepared to discuss this or not, but could you speak to the
    process used and the amount of public advisory that occurs
    should one of these types of studies occur and recommendations
    coming through, what type of advanced notice and input would
    the public have for those types of modifications?
        General Helmlinger. Well, first, we want to gain consensus
    from all of the impacted States and their non-Federal sponsors
    that a Lower Basin flood risk management study is necessary. I
    do believe it is necessary, as have been demonstrated during
    the floods in 1993 and 2011 and this year, that the system
    simply does not have the capacity to carry the waters that
    enters the system just from the tributaries of the Lower Basin.
        So, we need to do something different than simply rebuild
    the system that we have now. What that something different
    looks like, I can't speak to details on. I can speak to the
    generalities on the structural, which is levee rebuilding or
    realignment, and non-structural measures such as building
    heights or moving structures outside of the flood plain would
    be.
        If we were to do that, we would certainly do the whole
    series of public meetings and consultation to get the plan
    right, and where we would want to work with willing individuals
    that were ready to sell land to improve the flood plain. And we
    know that there would be individuals that were against that.
    So, that's where we'd go through our deliberate planning
    process to make sure that we come up with the most acceptable
    plan possible.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Mr. Remus, I'm just going to finish with just a couple of
    questions and just a conversation, if we could.
        This year I think you found yourself in a really tough
    predicament in that you had huge amounts of water coming
    through a system that started out with a bomb cyclone that
    clearly really impacted a lot of people down below the
    reservoir system. And I think you found yourself in a position
    trying to explain why you didn't really have the tools
    available to you to fix that. And this is an area that you
    live.
        And at the same time, trying to explain that without the
    tools available to you from the Mainstem Dams because this
    occurred below the Mainstem Dams primarily, that there wasn't a
    lot that the Corps could do.
        And yet, at the same time, I know that my office and other
    offices were making contact with your office about what you
    were going to be doing to try to respond to an increasing
    amount of precipitation and water moving into the Upper
    Mainstem Dams that, eventually, it's all going to come through
    this system.
        I live on the Missouri River. I have multiple [unclear] and
    friends who make contact with me every day. I, personally,
    check the reservoir systems up and down every single day in how
    many cubic feet per second you're averaging out, what the water
    levels are on every single reservoir, how much it's going up or
    how much it's going down, and the total amount of flood
    capacity you are using. I think right now it's 10.3 million
    acre-feet as of this afternoon, or as of this morning.

    [[Page 20]]

        But as I watch this, I would commend you in that with the
    tools that you had, I think your team has done a very good job
    using the tools of the Upper Mainstem Dams, you've done a very
    good job of keeping--not a single one of them has been run to
    the point where you've had to run one over the top, or that
    you've had to release items outside of using the traditional
    capacity of the power plants unless they've been down for
    repair, such as what will happen next week on the Oahe units.
    But that's been good because that meant that folks upstream
    from here have seen very, very high levels, but they have been
    manageable levels down and throughout this.
        But in December and in January and in February, I think our
    office continued to make contact and ask whether or not there
    was capacity available to look at higher releases because we
    could see, that in case it actually rained in the Upper Basin
    in the spring of the year, that you could might very well be in
    trouble. Even without that bomb cyclone hitting, we were going
    to have an excess capacity of water in the Upper Basin.
        What I'm looking for is within the Master Manual, within
    the operating constraints that you have, isn't there some way
    to be able to look at these very clear trends, where we have
    wet trends that are continuing to occur and until such time as
    it actually stops and moves into that drought cycle, which we
    will have again someday, isn't there some way to be able to,
    with the tools that you got, to be able to trend some of that
    out so that you're not sitting within inches of going over the
    top of Peck and Garrison and Oahe hoping that it doesn't rain
    in April, May, and June?
        Mr. Remus. Well, first of all, we don't ever hope that it
    doesn't rain in April, May, or June. We know it's going to rain
    in April, May, or June. I don't think we've ever had a year
    where it never rains there. And that we factor in, like I said
    earlier, we look at the Climate Prediction Center's long range
    outlook. I don't want to call it a forecast because they don't
    really forecast anything. They just kind of look at what they
    think it's going to be: wetter, dryer, and so on and so forth.
        So, we factor that into our forecast. And then every month
    we develop what we call a storage check. And in that, we look
    at all the water that we know is in the Basin, water we have in
    storage, and what we think our runoff will be based on the
    conditions, as I've explained earlier.
        OK, what do we need to be releasing from the system? That
    gives us a release from Gavins Point Dam for them. You know,
    and of course, that will always change through the year. And if
    we are projecting of a wetter year, we will release more water
    out of that beginning as soon as we can start getting it out of
    the reservoirs in North and South Dakota. Once we have the
    release from Gavins Point Dam, then we say, OK, where do we
    have to take that out of the system? How do we get it from Fort
    Peck to Gavins Point? And that's what we use the 3-week
    forecast for.
        And you're right, it's good for a couple of days, and then,
    depending on what happens--and what we do use that for is if--
    and then I'll give you the example: In April, when the plains'
    snowpack started to come off very quickly, and the pools of
    Oahe and Fort Randall rose very quickly, we were saying, OK,
    what do we need to be doing at Fort Peck and Garrison to help
    manage this? You

    [[Page 21]]

    know, we cut flows back to minimum out of those. So, that's
    what we can do in our system. Can----
        Senator Rounds. And you hardly got Fort Peck over 15,000,
    if you even got it over 15,000.
        Mr. Remus. Well, we even--it's running at 15,000 now.
        Now, can we say, OK, we're in a dry cycle so maybe we
    should release more, try to get more out in December, January,
    and February----
        Senator Rounds. You mean a wet cycle.
        Mr. Remus. Or a wet cycle.
        Senator Rounds. Wet cycle, yes.
        Mr. Remus. Yes, I'm sorry.
        Senator Rounds. No.
        Mr. Remus. I'm just hoping, I guess.
        Again, we are kind of limited, physically, as to what we
    can take out. And we, you know, we generally planned it, move
    to evacuate a million acre-feet in those 3 months. In some
    years we get a million out and some years we can get a little
    more out, but it's not really significant.
        And in this year, just on where the runoff came from and
    how fast, it really would not have made a difference in our
    system releases, as we got that--you know, but up until March
    15th, the plains' snowpack, although we had pockets of very
    heavy snow, we didn't really have overall an above average
    plains' snowpack.
        The bomb cyclone dumped another 2 to 4 inches of water over
    most of South Dakota and most of southern North Dakota, which
    by that time it was, you know, we were in a reactionary mode.
        Senator Rounds. Well----
        Mr. Remus. I'd actually read--so, was there something in
    the Master Manual? We can look at that and release more water.
    If we're going to start, you know, doing a trends analysis and
    not operating on an annual cycle, that would require a change
    to the Water Control Plan.
        Senator Rounds. But on an annual cycle, you could look at
    where the trends are moving.
        Mr. Remus. We could look at what our runoff forecast is,
    and if we have a wet Basin, we generally predict more water,
    and we can release more if we can get it out under the ice.
        Senator Rounds. I think I should stop while I'm ahead.
    Look, that's what I'm looking for. I just think that when we're
    trending this and there's an average and then there's a trend.
    And I think if we're averaging it over the life cycle of this
    system, what we're finding is, is that we go either wet or we
    go dry, but we don't seem to take into account that we're wet
    and we're in a wet cycle versus dry and we're in a dry cycle.
    And I just think that's worthwhile in looking at the trending
    that's the capability now with the new abilities that we're
    going to have, to be able to look at what our snowpacks are and
    so forth.
        And I understand that the ice does play a role in it, but
    it appears to me that we actually were able to increase by
    several thousand cubic feet per second beginning fairly early
    in the year for this year. And we were in touch with your
    office on March 8th, March 20th, March 28th, and April 10th of
    this year suggesting that we get those up faster than what we
    did.

    [[Page 22]]

        Mr. Remus. And we did that this year and last year----
        Senator Rounds. Yes.
        Mr. Remus [continuing]. When we saw that we--the storage
    check gives us--basically, it sets targets downstream in Omaha,
    Nebraska City, and Kansas City, and there's a floor and a
    ceiling to those. And we can manage to the minimum, or we can
    manage to the maximum. We always try to manage, or at least
    last year and this year, to get to that maximum.
        So, we knew we were going to have an above average. We
    didn't know it was going to be 53 million acre-feet, but we did
    know that, and we released toward the top of that ceiling early
    on as much as we could. But we did have a lot of constraints
    downstream.
        Senator Rounds. Very good.
        Gentlemen, is there anything that we have not touched on
    that you wanted to address today?
        General Helmlinger. Senator, I would just say that I
    appreciate the support from Congress and from our non-Federal
    sponsors, that as we work together to restore the levees here.
        One thing we will need in the future is sufficient
    appropriation to continue our restoration work, our phase two
    effort.
        And then, perhaps more importantly, is our long term phase
    three that we need continued support from all of our non-
    Federal sponsors, as well as Congress, to implement our Lower
    Basin flood risk management study, with the understanding that
    we're focusing just on the Lower Basin and its tributaries, so
    that we can improve the capacity or conveyance of water through
    that because it's clear now, as was demonstrated, that we have
    insufficient capacity to carry water safely through the Lower
    Missouri River.
        Senator Rounds. And John.
        Mr. Remus. I just want to thank you for allowing us to come
    here today. And thank you for your engagement in our Basin
    operations.
        Senator Rounds. I think there are days you don't appreciate
    that engagement.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Remus. No, and I--no, I do. I want to thank you. I
    don't think I got a chance to thank you for bringing a meeting
    in Pierre, and getting it rescheduled, and getting us a place.
    I want to thank you for that because the weather kind of
    prevented that. But you and your staff really helped us out
    there, so thank you.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        And General Helmlinger, I know that as you folks work
    through the Chairs and you, you know, coming in and out, you
    rely on the folks that are there doing the day-to-day work,
    such as John is doing and--
        John, how many years have you been working now with the
    Corps of Engineers doing this type of work?
        Mr. Remus. I've been working for the Corps of Engineers 34
    years, but I just had my second anniversary in this particular
    job.
        Senator Rounds. Yes. But before that, you were working in
    Omaha doing----
        Mr. Remus. Water resources engineering in the Missouri
    River Basin.

    [[Page 23]]

        Senator Rounds. It takes a while to get to the point of
    being able to do it. I presume you've already got other people
    that you're beginning to train to work through this process as
    well.
        Mr. Remus. Are you hinting at something?
        Senator Rounds. No, not yet.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Rounds. It's just when you guys come in as rookies,
    it takes us some time to get you up to speed. That's all.
        Mr. Remus. I have a very good staff, yes.
        Senator Rounds. Very good.
        Look, thank you. And once again, I said this earlier, and I
    mean it, you are neighbors and friends, and you live with this
    river as well. And it is appreciated, the work that you do,
    even in times in which sometimes you don't have all the tools
    necessary to be able to protect all the property and the
    livelihoods down here that you want to. And part of our
    responsibility is to make sure that you have as many of those
    tools available to you as we can possibly get to you and that
    the management tools are also available to you as well.
        Now, if there are no more questions or comments that we
    want to make today--and I do not have the other members with me
    today. Other members may very well want to submit questions for
    the record, and that will be allowed for the next 2 weeks as
    well.
        I want to thank General Helmlinger, and Mr. Remus, and the
    Corps of Engineers for traveling and taking part in this
    hearing and for their hard work and dedication in managing the
    Missouri River Basin. Your thoughtful participation in this
    conversation as to how we can improve the management of the
    system is an important step to protecting homes and businesses
    and communities along the Missouri River.
        Again, I want to thank everybody for your time today and
    for traveling to South Dakota to take part in this hearing.
        And with that, this hearing is closed.
        [Whereas, at 3:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]