    [Senate Hearing 117-119]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-119

                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21ST
       CENTURY: THE VIABILITY OF INCORPORATING NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN
                 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                WATER AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 24, 2021

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    43-942                     WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                         ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
                                     ------

                        Subcommittee on Water and Power

                              RON WYDEN, Chairman

    BERNARD SANDERS                      CINDY HYDE-SMITH
    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO               JAMES E. RISCH
    MARK KELLY                           MIKE LEE
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER                 JOHN HOEVEN
                                         ROGER MARSHALL

                          Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                  Melanie Thornton, Professional Staff Member
                 Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
                  Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
           Brian Clifford, Republican Principal Deputy Staff Director
                         Darla Ripchensky, Chief Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Oregon.........................................................     1
    Hyde-Smith, Hon. Cindy, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
      Senator from Mississippi.......................................     2
    Kelly, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Arizona....................    12

                                   WITNESSES

    Cochran, Dr. Bobby, Partner, Community Resilience & Innovation,
      Willamette Partnership.........................................    12
    Larson, Troy, Executive Director, Lewis & Clark Regional Water
      System.........................................................    20
    Richter, Dr. Holly, Arizona Water Projects Director, The Nature
      Con-
      servancy.......................................................    26
    Stern, Charles V., Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
      Congressional Research Service.................................    38

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Cochran, Dr. Bobby:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
        Written Testimony............................................    15
        Response to Question for the Record..........................    59
    Family Farm Alliance:
        Statement for the Record.....................................     4
    (The) Freshwater Trust:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    66
    Hyde-Smith, Hon. Cindy:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Kelly, Hon. Mark:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
    Larson, Troy:
        Opening Statement............................................    20
        Written Testimony............................................    22
        Response to Question for the Record..........................    60
    Natel Energy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    71
    National Audubon Society:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    76
    Northern California Water Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    79
    Richter, Dr. Holly:
        Opening Statement............................................    26
        Written Testimony............................................    28
        Response to Question for the Record..........................    61
    Stern, Charles V.:
        Opening Statement............................................    38
        Written Testimony............................................    40
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    62
    Trout Unlimited:
        Letter for the Record........................................    85
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     1

          WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE VIABILITY OF
      INCORPORATING NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATER
                               MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021

                                   U.S. Senate,
                       Subcommittee on Water and Power,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee presiding.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. The Subcommittee will come to order and
    welcome to the first Water and Power Subcommittee hearing of
    the 117th Congress. I would like to start by acknowledging that
    it is taking place during World Water Week, and I am pleased to
    be able to welcome our new Ranking Member from Mississippi,
    Senator Hyde-Smith. We have been comparing notes with respect
    to the fact that we often walk together to votes in the Senate
    and we are both fast walkers. So it is great to have her.
        I will tell you, Senator, that we look at the abundance of
    water that you have in your state and I am sure that, at least
    for folks that you represent, it is hard to imagine what water
    is like for us in the West. There is an old saying in our part
    of the world, the former chairman of the Committee, someone we
    all admired very much, Pete Domenici of New Mexico used to
    often say, ``In the West, whiskey is for drinking. Water is for
    fighting over.'' Well, this year is going to be a doozy of a
    battle and one that we have to get at quickly. Across the West,
    towns like Sisters, Oregon, and cities like Denver are
    wondering if they have enough water to respond to fires. Tribes
    like Oregon's Warm Springs are struggling to provide clean
    drinking water to communities. Farmers, like those in the
    Klamath Basin, are making tough calls right now about whether
    to plant crops or to fallow their land and try again next year.
    As of Monday, 27 out of 36 counties in Oregon have unusually
    dry weather and we are seeing these numbers trend earlier and
    earlier each year.
        Now, this water shortage has big ramifications and the fact
    is that Congress has to use every tool available to put
    together water availability with water needs. So today I
    introduced legislation that instructs the Bureau of Reclamation
    to start expanding their toolbox because that is really what
    this is about, using every single tool to try to connect water
    availability with water needs. First, under my bill, the Bureau
    of Reclamation has to be creative using natural infrastructure
    to reduce water conflicts. Second, it would prioritize projects
    that provide multiple benefits: water, recreation and habitat.
    And the bill creates new ways for the Bureau of Reclamation to
    work with farmers, to plan irrigation seasons and also address
    issues like migratory birds and endangered fish.
        So as we look to this toolbox, I think we are starting off
    in the right direction, talking about natural infrastructure,
    using nature to provide clean water, reduce flooding, store
    spring water for use later. For a great example of how natural
    infrastructure is being used, you can look at a town I am
    honored to represent: Tillamook, Oregon. There, farmers and
    local stakeholders worked together and Tillamook restored 300
    acres of fish habitat in their estuary and reduced the flooding
    risk to the town. How? By removing manmade barriers around the
    Wilson River to allow the river and ocean tides to meet
    naturally, flood the original estuary and support native salmon
    and steelhead, rather than to flood the town. So I am looking
    forward to hearing from our panel today to discuss ways to use
    what nature has given us to store and conserve water.
        And now, for her first opening statement, here is our
    Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, let me turn to my colleague
    from Mississippi.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. CINDY HYDE-SMITH,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    really am honored to be in this position on such an important
    Subcommittee. It is making me thirsty just talking about this.
    I look forward to working with you and to address the important
    issues such as the one that we have before us today, the
    viability of incorporating natural infrastructure within the
    Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you to our witnesses who are
    joining us today. I am hopeful that through your testimony and
    your answers that we can gain a deeper knowledge on how to
    approach the best solutions to America's water supply
    challenges, especially in the drought-prone areas that are
    environmentally resilient and economically viable.
        Although my state lies east of the Mississippi River, I
    understand the duty and the responsibilities the Bureau of
    Reclamation holds for the 17 Western states that it serves. Of
    the many notable features of the Reclamation, it is the largest
    wholesaler of water in the country, allowing access to water to
    nearly 31 million people. Reclamation is integral to our
    farmers, as it provides one out of five Western states' farmers
    with irrigation, water for ten million acres of farmland which
    provides 60 percent of the nation's vegetables and 25 percent
    of the fruits and nuts. We do not grow a lot of nuts in
    Mississippi, other than pecans. Reclamation is also the second
    largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States,
    producing enough electricity to serve 3.5 million homes. I
    believe investment in infrastructure across the nation is
    important, including finding responsible solutions to Western
    water infrastructure needs that are in the best economic
    interest of American citizens.
        One issue I hope to highlight during this hearing is the
    effectiveness of natural infrastructure and built
    infrastructure, or gray infrastructure, as it is referred to.
    Our witnesses will review the different benefits of natural and
    gray infrastructure and I am interested in how to accomplish
    greater utilization of natural infrastructure solutions without
    increasing production cost, extending project completion dates,
    and creating a backlog of unfinished projects that we get
    started and it just stays out there and lingers forever.
        Before I close, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
    to submit written testimony from Dan Keppen, Executive Director
    of Family Farm Alliance. In summary, the Alliance believes that
    constructing and using natural infrastructure, while used for
    many decades in managing water in the West, must be done in a
    tightly coordinated fashion with water managers and a
    watershed. Natural infrastructure must be used in conjunction
    with existing dams and existing canals but also must not be a
    one-size-fits-all approach to improving water supply. It
    believes there must be investments in new and existing water
    storage and conveyance infrastructure, including rehabilitating
    and upgrading aging facilities that we are all way too familiar
    with. I ask that this be submitted by unanimous consent.
        Senator Wyden. Colleague, without objection, and we know
    Dan Keppen very well. He lives in Oregon and his ideas and
    input are always welcomed. So I thank you for raising that.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much.
        [Written testimony from Dan Keppen follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Hyde-Smith. I look forward to discussing how the
    Bureau of Reclamation can further meet the water demands and
    managements of the West, while also protecting the public
    investment in projects that also promote economic development,
    watershed health and protection, and communities that are more
    resilient.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, colleague.
        Now let me, kind of, give folks a little bit of a sense of
    where we are. Oh, very good.
        Senator Kelly, who will run the hearing in a bit when I
    have to go to the Floor, now will introduce one of our
    witnesses, Dr. Holly Richter, and I am going to have him do
    that here momentarily. Then the order of our witnesses will be
    Dr. Bobby Cochran, with Oregon's Willamette Partnership, Mr.
    Larson and then we will have Dr. Richter and Mr. Stern. I
    believe that is the order of the witnesses.
        Senator Kelly, would you like to introduce Dr. Holly
    Richter?

                     STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KELLY,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

        Senator Kelly. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for
    holding today's hearing on natural infrastructure. I would like
    to take one minute to very briefly introduce one of our
    witnesses who will be testifying shortly, Dr. Holly Richter, as
    you said, is from the Arizona Chapter of The Nature Conservancy
    in Tucson. Over the past 20 years, Dr. Richter has worked with
    elected officials, local stakeholders and the U.S. Army base
    commanders at Fort Huachuca to reduce groundwater pumping that
    is depleting the surface flows of the San Pedro River, one of
    the last free-flowing rivers in the Southwest.
        She is a founding member of the Upper San Pedro River
    Partnership, a clearinghouse of scientific and technical
    information that was used to inform local decision-makers on
    how best to conserve water at the Fort and in the nearby city
    of Sierra Vista. Fort Huachuca is a critical intelligence and
    cybersecurity center for the Army. Dr. Richter's work is
    important to the service branches, the 16,000 soldiers and
    civilian contractors stationed there and the long-term economic
    prosperity for Cochise County.
        I look forward to listening to her testimony and thank you,
    Chairman Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Kelly, and thank you for
    also allowing us to keep this going as I have to go to the
    Floor in a bit.
        All right. Let's go to our witnesses.
        Dr. Bobby Cochran, with Oregon's Willamette Partnership, is
    testifying from the beautiful State of Oregon, as I understand
    it.
        Dr. Cochran.

    STATEMENT OF DR. BOBBY COCHRAN, PARTNER, COMMUNITY RESILIENCE &
                   INNOVATION, WILLAMETTE PARTNERSHIP

        Dr. Cochran. Senator Wyden, Senator Hyde-Smith and
    distinguished members of the Subcommittee and all the other
    panelists, it's a real good honor to be here. My name is Bobby
    Cochran. I'm our Partner for Community Resilience & Innovation
    at Willamette Partnership and the Partnership is based in
    Oregon, as you said, Senator, but we support communities all
    over the Western United States in finding solutions that
    improve the environment, improve health, and create a more
    inclusive economy. In particular, we implement solutions for
    natural infrastructure that save money and get better outcomes.
        So for us, natural infrastructure is an approach that uses
    any process of nature to provide a key service to communities,
    so that could be filtering drinking water, reducing flood risk,
    increasing the ability to store snow and groundwater for later
    in the summer when we need it to grow food and drive industry.
    And right now a lot of towns, especially our small, low-income
    places, are trying to find new ways to do more with less and
    provide the kinds of opportunities for their kids to thrive,
    take over the farm, get good jobs and grow up to raise their
    families and towns. And so, we need infrastructure investment
    to do multiple things at once and natural infrastructure is one
    of those key things in the toolbox and I'll give a couple of
    examples.
        You know, first off, we can think of our forests as
    reservoirs. Oregon's seeing a lot less snowpack which is our
    significant storage resource for a lot of the state and that
    dynamic is true all over the West. Most of the water
    infrastructure, particularly the federal water infrastructure
    in Oregon, was built more than 50 years ago, so back when like
    Phil Knight was making shoes on a waffle iron. We can do better
    than that. And here's some examples of where we're thinking of
    upgrades. So some research out of the North Platte River in
    Colorado is identifying opportunities for improved forest
    management that could actually increase water yields in the
    North Platte River by 55,000 acre-feet a year. The cities of
    Denver and Santa Fe are already investing in forest restoration
    upstream of their reservoirs to prevent catastrophic fire that
    lets a huge dose of sediment fill up those reservoirs. And so,
    it really is a role for Reclamation in partnering with upstream
    land managers to protect existing storage capacity and kind of
    lean in to that opportunity for natural groundwater storage.
    There's also a really good upside for investment in natural
    infrastructure that every $1 million we invest in natural
    infrastructure, we see about 15 to 24 jobs created and a lot of
    those jobs are local jobs. So basically, $0.90 of every $1.00
    spent on natural infrastructure stays in the local community
    and we've found instances in natural infrastructure that
    actually created a restoration economy that you had off-season
    forest workers and others being able to stay closer to home and
    closer to family.
        Restored streams are another really good example of natural
    infrastructure providing cool, clean, affordable water. One
    example to point to is in Southern Oregon for the cities of
    Medford and Ashland. They had a choice. We all take hot showers
    in the morning. That water coming out of the edge of the
    wastewater treatment plant was too warm for fish. We could have
    spent $16 million on a mechanical chiller--100 percent sure to
    cool the water in terms of the end of the pipe but it did
    nothing relative to the broader habitat needs and broader
    community investment. So instead, Medford and Ashland invested
    in natural infrastructure, restoring streams in the Rogue River
    and they did that at more than half of the cost, so basically,
    $6-$8 million. And the upside of a lot of that stream
    restoration is, when the Almeda Fire ripped through this Labor
    Day, the restored stream actually acted as firebreak,
    preventing the fire from burning as intensely and burning as
    quickly and prevented the loss of some key homes along the
    riparian corridor.
        So in general, we really need to think about how we can put
    natural infrastructure on an even playing field and there's
    some things that Congress can help do to help establish that
    even playing field. One of the things is just make natural
    infrastructure eligible. The Water Resource Development Act of
    2020 did that with a lot of the WRDA investments. FEMA has done
    that with a lot of its natural hazard mitigation approaches. So
    just making it eligible is simple and then prioritizing
    infrastructure investments that create multiple benefits. So,
    not only thinking about water storage, but thinking about
    benefits to habitat, affordability for ratepayers, particularly
    low-income ratepayers, and then also thinking about flood
    protection and fire protection as well. And then, I think, just
    thinking about bigger than shovel ready. So as Congress thinks
    about infrastructure investments or the role of Federal
    Government, shovel ready doesn't invest in the types of broad
    solutions that we think are important. So thinking about
    coordinated permitting, monies to solve planning, money for
    technical assistance, particularly for rural communities, and
    making sure that infrastructure needs to create resilient
    inclusive economies as well as the broader benefits.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share some of our
    thoughts. Happy to answer any questions. Happy to be in
    conversation over time with you. Senators, thank you all for
    your service for the country and everything that you do and
    thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Cochran follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Wyden. Dr. Cochran, thank you very much.
        I also want to welcome Senator Marshall, our new colleague
    from Kansas. I was born in Wichita, because my dad worked at
    The Wichita Eagle. We look forward to having you here on the
    Subcommittee.
        Senator Marshall. Thank you. Glad to be here.
        Senator Wyden. Very good.
        Our next witness will be Mr. Troy Larson, Executive
    Director of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, also from
    home.
        Mr. Larson, you are also with us.

             STATEMENT OF TROY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                  LEWIS & CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM

        Mr. Larson. Yes, good afternoon. I'm Troy Larson, Executive
    Director of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, for allowing me to
    testify.
        Lewis & Clark is a drinking water project that covers
    southeast South Dakota, northwest Iowa and southwest Minnesota.
    It involves a partnership with the Federal Government, 3
    states, 15 cities and 5 rural water systems. The Bureau of
    Reclamation provides construction and regulatory oversight and
    has been an important partner since Lewis & Clark was
    incorporated in 1990 and later authorized by Congress in 2000.
    Construction began in 2004 and we are about 86 percent
    complete. At current federal funding levels, we unfortunately
    still have about ten years to go. I've been the Executive
    Director for 18 years. Reclamation is involved with every level
    of construction to ensure projects are constructed in the most
    efficient and cost-effective manner possible, as well as
    ensuring all environmental regulations are followed.
    Reclamation staff in Pierre, Bismarck and Billings have been
    invaluable partners. The 3 states and 20 local members have
    fulfilled their financial obligations to Lewis & Clark, a
    combined $154 million. A timeline to complete construction
    depends entirely on annual appropriations as the Federal
    Government works toward fulfilling its financial commitment.
    Our goal of connecting the remaining communities is within
    reach, but this assumes construction requirements do not change
    in ways that would add more money or time.
        I appreciate the goals of the Chairman in terms of
    exploring the viability of incorporating natural infrastructure
    into Reclamation's mission. I have three concerns about this
    proposal; however, I caveat my concerns with the statement that
    I'm not aware of the full scope of the policy changes under
    consideration. So I raise concerns in an effort to bring issues
    to the Subcommittee's attention. First, I'm concerned new
    requirements could increase the cost of construction as well as
    delay completion of projects. Second, I am concerned about a
    one-size-fits-all change because not all Reclamation projects
    are alike. And third, I'm concerned funding natural
    infrastructure may take precedent over completing projects
    currently underway. I will discuss each in turn.
        In terms of the financial effects, an example from 2008 is
    particularly important for the Subcommittee to consider. Our
    source of water is a series of wells adjacent to the Missouri
    River. To protect the wells from erosion, we needed to
    construct bank stabilization. At the request of the National
    Park Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, we used an
    approach they deemed to be more environmentally friendly, even
    though our approach would have accomplished the exact same
    goal. The bank stabilization was completed in 2008 at a cost of
    $5.25 million. Our engineers conservatively estimate this
    approach added at least $1 million to the cost, roughly a 20
    percent increase. We could've used the $1 million to construct
    more pipeline.
        Second, I'm concerned Reclamation may be required to apply
    natural infrastructure provisions to all projects. Land forms
    and topography vary greatly, what might work in the Western
    states may not work for us on the Plains.
        Finally, I'm very concerned if Congress adds a new scope to
    Reclamation's mission, it could mean longstanding projects like
    ours will take a back seat for funding to natural
    infrastructure projects. We originally thought it would take
    ten years to complete our project. Here we are 20 years after
    authorization and we still have about 10 years to go. If
    Reclamation is required to satisfy Congress' desire to have the
    agency focus on natural infrastructure, what does that mean for
    projects like ours in terms of Reclamation's funding
    priorities? Lewis & Clark would strongly oppose giving a higher
    funding priority to natural infrastructure projects.
        I close by reiterating that changes in Reclamation's
    mission could adversely affect the cost and timeline for the
    completion of projects like Lewis & Clark. My thanks to the
    Chairman for holding this hearing and the Ranking Member for
    inviting me to testify. I stand ready to be a resource to the
    Subcommittee as you explore what natural infrastructure
    requirements might mean to projects like ours. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson.
        Just a quick comment while it is fresh in everybody's mind.
    I want all my colleagues and others who are following this
    debate to know that as we envision it and as the bill has been
    written, this is one option in the toolkit. It was something,
    as I indicated in my statement, that was was chosen in
    Tillamook by farmers and conservationists and others as fitting
    the area. So I only want to make clear, this is an option. It
    would not be given a higher priority or anything of that
    nature. And just while it is fresh in everybody's mind, I just
    wanted the record to make it clear that those of us who are
    looking in the West--and this is before you came, Senator
    Kelly--we kind of need all of the above. We need lots of tools
    because we are short of water. We are going to look at this,
    and we are going to look at that, and over here and over there.
        So I very much appreciate the chance to just make that
    point for the record.
        Let's now have Dr. Holly Richter.

        STATEMENT OF DR. HOLLY RICHTER, ARIZONA WATER PROJECTS
                    DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

        Dr. Richter. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hyde-Smith and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    testify today on incorporating natural infrastructure in
    Western water management. It's an appropriate topic during this
    week of World Water Day. I appreciate the Committee's focus on
    solutions that support economic development, protect watershed
    health and build more resilient communities.
        I'm Holly Richter, the Arizona Water Projects Director for
    The Nature Conservancy, and where I live and work groundwater
    is the only source of water for people and nature. Fort
    Huachuca, the U.S. Army's premier intelligence and
    communications testing facility, depends on the same limited
    groundwater resources as does the U.S. Bureau of Land
    Management's San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area
    located several miles away. The small towns and cities in the
    area do as well. When I first moved to Arizona, legal battles
    related to the limited groundwater supplies had started to
    emerge. And in response, The Nature Conservancy was a founding
    member of the collaborative group of 21 different stakeholders,
    the Upper San Pedro Partnership, to build consensus for
    hydrologic science that could help inform decision-making. Over
    the years, we worked with the U.S. Geological Survey to develop
    a predictive groundwater model to evaluate a wide range of
    alternatives. And what we learned together was that there were
    some significant ways to optimize groundwater for the various
    water needs of humans and nature. The Partnership later joined
    forces with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to conduct an
    appraisal level study of water management alternatives that was
    completed in 2007.
        Today, we have much more clarity about the most effective
    options to replenish groundwater and to assure a vibrant
    economy, the operability of missions of Fort Huachuca, the
    health of the San Pedro River and water security for local
    communities. The conversations over the years weren't always
    easy ones, but the co-development of the information to inform
    our decisions brought increased clarity and understanding. The
    vision for regional water management included replenishment of
    the groundwater aquifer at just the right places and amounts,
    using treated wastewater effluent and stormwater. We identified
    where too much stormwater was problematic. For example, where
    there was increased runoff from urbanized areas and we flipped
    that problem into a water source asset. We looked at the demand
    side of the equation as well and retired high-volume pumping
    and/or precluded it in the future at the locations where our
    science told us it had the worst impacts to water supplies.
        The U.S. Army has been a critical partner for projects to
    support our regional water vision. The Army's Compatible Use
    Buffer program which is part of DoD's Readiness and
    Environmental Protection Integration program, or REPI, has
    leveraged the efforts of this conservation partnership to
    address water security for all water users in the region. REPI
    funded us and allowed for the development of projects that
    could combat encroachment on military training, testing and
    operations and enhance military installation resilience, while
    also increasing water security for the entire region. And
    today, only three more recharge projects, totaling $21 million,
    now remain to be constructed by our consortium of project
    partners, called the Cochise Conservation and Recharge Network.
    One of the remaining projects blends traditional and natural
    infrastructure approaches. Stormwater runoff from the largest
    urban area in the watershed will be diverted into a constructed
    basin to retain accelerated flood peaks in a way that slowly
    releases them back into the natural channel at a rate that will
    increase channel infiltration and groundwater recharge. The
    project will restore a more natural flood regime. It'll reduce
    sedimentation, increase water quality and result in enhanced
    groundwater storage.
        I want to thank you for Congress' attention to water
    resources legislation. I hope that as Congress debates
    investments in infrastructure, that you will make Western water
    supply infrastructure a priority. To increase water security in
    the West, we will need additional resources and funding for
    projects capable of leveraging natural systems as well as
    traditional infrastructure to convey and store water supplies.
    The example project I described today is illustrative of how
    traditional and natural infrastructure can be blended into one
    single project, but the inclusion of both types of projects
    within a given watershed can also leverage the benefits of one
    with another. As the primary federal water managers for the
    West, the Bureau of Reclamation should look at these types of
    innovation and solutions more often and implement them in
    collaboration with other agencies where appropriate to build a
    resilient and multi-benefit Western water infrastructure for
    the future.
        I appreciate the Committee's attention to Western water
    issues and I thank you once again for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Richter follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
        We will wrap up now with Charlie Stern, Specialist in
    Natural Resources at the Congressional Research Service.

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES V. STERN, SPECIALIST IN NATURAL RESOURCES
                 POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

        Mr. Stern. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hyde-
    Smith and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Charles
    Stern. I'm a specialist in Natural Resources Policy at the
    Congressional Research Service, or CRS. Thank you for inviting
    CRS to testify. The Committee has asked CRS to provide general
    context on natural infrastructure and how these concepts fit
    into the Bureau of Reclamation's authorities. In serving the
    U.S. Congress, CRS takes no position on the issues I will
    discuss today.
        Observers have used a variety of terms to describe both
    natural features and combinations of traditional hard or gray
    features with natural components that are used to restore or
    mimic natural processes. In this testimony I will use the term
    natural infrastructure to collectively represent these
    features, the others may use different terms. Natural
    infrastructure can provide a range of beneficial functions. In
    the water availability context, natural infrastructure
    primarily addresses water supply rather than demand. Relevant
    efforts may include restoring forests, reconnecting rivers to
    floodplains, creating spaces for bioretention and infiltration
    and combining one or more of these features with managed
    aquifer recharge. These projects may reduce flash flooding,
    increase stored groundwater and improve late season flows,
    among other things.
        Some federal agencies have received explicit Congressional
    guidance and definitions as to what constitutes natural
    infrastructure. For example, in 2016 Congress enacted
    definitions of natural feature and nature-based feature for the
    civil works authorities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Congress also directed the Corps to consider these features in
    its project planning. Congress has also defined green
    infrastructure, a similar but not always synonymous term for
    EPA authorities under the Clean Water Act. The differences in
    these definitions are delineated further in my written
    testimony. Other agencies construct or support work on natural
    infrastructure under broad authorities. For example, NOAA has
    supported the use of natural infrastructure features to fulfill
    the agency's mandates, but Congress has not explicitly defined
    natural infrastructure in statute for NOAA activities.
        The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed more than 180
    federally-authorized water resource projects throughout the 17
    Western Reclamation states. Over the last 50 years, Reclamation
    has constructed fewer new federal projects, but has expanded
    support for non-federally led projects, including those for
    water reuse and recycling, desalination and water and energy
    efficiency modernization, among other things. The primary
    opportunities to incorporate natural infrastructure features
    into Reclamation activities involve efforts to improve natural
    water storage. Most prominently, this might involve new managed
    aquifer recharge projects or additional efforts to restore
    rivers and ecosystems, headwaters and floodplains to a more
    natural state. In regard to groundwater recharge, generally,
    Reclamation does not manage significant aquifer recharge
    programs or facilities. However, the Bureau has experience with
    aquifer recharge activities in some locations and Congress has
    authorized federal financial support for some geographically
    specific, non-federal recharge projects. Additionally, several
    of Reclamation's programmatic authorities can be used to
    provide financial support for groundwater storage. These
    include grants through the Bureau's WaterSMART and Title 16
    programs as well as support for water storage projects under
    the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act.
    Reclamation and water users have utilized some of these
    programmatic authorities for natural infrastructure more than
    others and I outline the statistics of this usage in my written
    testimony.
        In regard to ecosystem restoration, Reclamation has
    typically aligned its ecosystem restoration activities with the
    authorized purposes of the Bureau's water resource projects, as
    well as with other relevant federal laws, such as the
    Endangered Species Act. Projects under these authorities may
    support river protection and enhancement, activities that, in
    some cases, may have the potential to improve water supply
    related ecosystem services. The 116th Congress approved several
    changes related to natural infrastructure in the FY 2021
    Appropriations Act. Congress added definitions for natural
    feature and nature-based feature for Reclamation's WaterSMART
    grants program, notably, these were the first such statutory
    definitions for Reclamation. It also explicitly made these
    types of projects eligible for WaterSMART grant support.
    Congress also approved broad authority for Reclamation to
    assist non-federal entities with aquatic ecosystem restoration
    efforts in Reclamation states. Depending on funding and
    implementation decisions, some future non-federal projects
    under this authority could support natural infrastructure
    efforts.
        In discussing the future of natural infrastructure in
    Reclamation's activities, Congress may weigh the extent to
    which natural infrastructure might merit a set-aside or other
    consideration in Reclamation programs, including in WaterSMART
    or in proposed extensions of the WIIN Act, Section 4007,
    Storage Authority. Congress could also consider enacting
    guidance directing how Reclamation should incorporate natural
    infrastructure in its activities as it has done for the Corps.
    In doing so, how or if Congress defines natural infrastructure
    may be an important component in framing Reclamation's
    approach.
        This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have at the appropriate time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stern follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Stern.
        Let me start with you, Dr. Cochran. There you are. So I
    mentioned Tillamook, Oregon, a beautiful community, and I am
    having virtual town meetings and getting out on the Oregon
    coast here starting in a day or two. For my colleagues,
    Tillamook is dairy country. You probably have some Tillamook
    products in your refrigerator, cheeses and things like that.
    And in the community, the farmers and the stakeholders, as I
    indicated, produced the win-win. They dealt with supply issues.
    They restored habitat, not because it was something that
    government mandated or this kind of thing, they said this is
    the best option for us, a natural option for us.
        So my question to you, to begin, Dr. Cochran, why wouldn't
    it make sense, apropos of the toolkit for dealing with water,
    to create options--and I underline that, options, no mandates--
    to do more of what Tillamook showed is a win-win? What are your
    thoughts on that?
        Dr. Cochran. Yeah, thank you for the question, Senator, and
    I really do hope we are able to get to the point where we can
    share that virtual ice cream or real, in person, ice cream at
    some point from Tillamook. The folks, the stuff they're doing
    there is great.
        You know, I think, to the question of how we think about
    options, that is the point really, that it's the choice between
    gray or natural infrastructure is a bit of a false choice. It's
    never an either/or. Another example is from Central Oregon
    which is also a Reclamation project, where you have irrigation
    districts that are investing in piping canals that right now
    are leaking a lot of water and also taking the opportunity to
    lay in hydropower in those pipes, as well as lay down rural
    broadband so that folks have access to broadband internet for
    their kids to go to school and all that good stuff. Right
    alongside that, the land trust and the irrigation district are
    working on floodplain restoration that's adding more water back
    into the stream and improving habitat.
        So when communities are getting together, where farms and
    towns and environmental groups and tribes and others are
    cooperating, you're seeing these really innovative solutions
    come together and what we find is it's more of an issue of hey,
    you all are the government. We don't care so much whether
    you're Reclamation or Forest Service or whichever agency, we're
    looking for support in the entire suite of solutions that we've
    just come to. So that solution in Central Oregon is going to be
    a little bit different than the one in Tillamook, a little bit
    different than the one in New Mexico, a little bit different
    than the one in Idaho. That's cool. Let's just figure out how
    to provide options and flexibility so communities can track
    their----
        Senator Wyden. Dr. Cochran, you said it better than I could
    because I think this really is a false choice. Washington, DC,
    does lots of false choices, always looking for pitting somebody
    against somebody else. So that isn't going to happen as long as
    I am Chair of the Subcommittee, and I am going to be working
    with Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Kelly, Dr. Marshall and
    everybody to create more options. I think you said it very
    well, Dr. Cochran.
        One question for you if I might, Mr. Stern, and then we
    will go to my colleague from Mississippi, and Senator Kelly
    will chair.
        Mr. Stern, I gather that the Bureau of Rec has some
    authorities to use natural infrastructure to support
    groundwater storage and restoration work. Why don't you,
    because we don't get you into politics and all that kind of
    stuff, what are the limits in terms of what you can do and you
    have heard me say that I just want there to be more options,
    but I think it would be helpful to get a sense of what you
    think the limits are because you said Bureau of Reclamation has
    some authorities to use natural infrastructure which makes me
    think that something is being limited. Go ahead.
        Mr. Stern. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        Yeah, as I had mentioned in my written testimony,
    Reclamation has some authorities to use natural infrastructure,
    some of which were recently added. There are some who support
    additional authorities for Reclamation in regards to natural
    infrastructure and one potential option in that world would be
    actually doing some sort of a set-aside or additional
    prioritization for natural infrastructure. Another option might
    be just adding natural infrastructure as a more explicit
    authorized purpose, for example, under Section 4007 of the WIIN
    Act where groundwater storage projects are authorized, but
    other sorts of natural storage projects are not currently
    authorized.
        Senator Wyden. I am over my time, but the second one you
    described sounds to me like, again, something that might just
    be seen as, hey, look this is one of the options. We are not
    saying go do this or go do that, but this is one of the
    options. Is that what you are trying to convey in something
    resembling understandable language?
        Mr. Stern. That would certainly be an option, yes.
        Senator Wyden. Great, okay.
        We are going to go to my colleague from Mississippi and I
    very much appreciate our new member, Senator Kelly, taking
    over. Thanks to our friend from Oregon, Dr. Cochran. I look
    forward to working with all my colleagues on these issues. I
    don't think anybody has mentioned one party or another here. We
    have a lot of interesting work to do, and I look forward to
    pursuing it with my colleagues.
        We will now go to Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Kelly will
    run the hearing.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also look
    forward to working with you. We all have to have water. As they
    say, water is life.
        Mr. Larson----
        Mr. Larson. Yes.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. ----when it comes to funding the Bureau
    of Reclamation infrastructure projects, in your opinion, what
    projects do you believe should be given the highest priority?
        Mr. Larson. Thank you very much, Senator, for the question.
        We would certainly advocate that projects that are given
    the highest priority are the ones currently underway that are
    already on the Federal Government's plate as opposed to adding
    new projects where you're adding an additional financial need
    for the Bureau of Reclamation. So we would strongly advocate
    making sure that projects already on the Federal Government's
    plate are prioritized, and we appreciate that the Chairman
    indicated this will not be a mandate. What we have seen in the
    history of Reclamation funding is when it comes time for budget
    cuts, rural water projects get cut the most. We are at the
    bottom rung when it comes to the priorities of Bureau of
    Reclamation. That's not to say they're not supported. It's just
    when it comes to funding, we're at the bottom. And the concern
    is adding more projects, regardless of what they're called,
    will put us further down the list.
        And so yes, our concern is getting pushed further back. So
    we would certainly advocate making sure that projects already
    underway are completed first.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And if the drinking water projects,
    like Lewis & Clark's, are not completed in a timely manner,
    what are the potential economic ripple effects of those delays?
        Mr. Larson. Thank you, Senator, for that question as well.
        There's a double whammy to the taxpayers. The longer it
    takes to complete projects like Lewis & Clark, which still has
    a federal commitment of roughly $160 million, the more
    expensive it becomes due to inflation indexing. Every year the
    remaining federal cost share is indexed for inflation. So
    that's one impact to the taxpayers.
        The second impact to the taxpayers is the longer it takes
    for our cities and rural water systems to realize the economic
    benefits of being connected to Lewis & Clark and having the
    water. So the taxpayers are hurt on one side by having
    increasing costs due to inflation and number two, not having
    economic development opportunities as a result of the delay in
    getting water to them.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Now, that has always been one of my
    frustrations.
        And also, in your testimony you mentioned that there are
    five projects funded by the Reclamation Rural Water Program.
        Mr. Larson. Correct.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And that the states and municipalities
    have fulfilled their financial obligations to these projects.
    What steps have the states and local members had to take in
    response to the slow pace of federal funding?
        Mr. Larson. Another really good question.
        Two things have had to happen because of the delays. Number
    one is the 20 cities in the rural water systems have had to
    spend an additional $17 million to make temporary fixes to
    address their water needs. So this is money on top of the $154
    million that was paid by the states and the members. So they've
    had to spend more money than they expected because of the
    delays. And number two, because of the delays, we've turned to
    the three states for what we call, federal funding advances,
    which get this, zero interest, unsecured loans that will be
    paid back at an unknown point in time with future federal
    funding. Try going to a bank and get those terms. And the
    reason the states have agreed to do that, to the tune of $55
    million. The three states have put in an additional $55 million
    of these federal funding advances because they know how
    critically important Lewis & Clark is to the tri-state region
    in terms of quality of life and economic development.
        So because of the slow pace of federal funding, this is $55
    million of additional money that the three states put up,
    again, as federal funding advances, at zero interest, unsecured
    loans that will be paid back at an unknown point in time with
    future federal funds. So it's really important we get these
    projects completed as soon as possible.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes.
        Thank you so much. I yield back my 20 seconds. I do not
    have enough time for another question at this moment.
        Mr. Larson. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kelly [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
        So Dr. Richter, in Arizona, Phoenix and Tucson receive
    water from the Central Arizona Project and the Salt River
    Project. Both are federal Reclamation, hard infrastructure
    projects. Cochise County needs water to grow too, but pumping
    groundwater from the San Pedro Aquifer is unquestionably
    affecting the river and, as a result, Fort Huachuca as well. So
    in your testimony you described projects in Cochise County that
    capture stormwater runoff that can be used to recharge
    groundwater supplies. Now, if you had more help from the Bureau
    of Reclamation, how quickly could natural infrastructure
    projects be completed in Cochise County compared to some of the
    hard infrastructure projects that have been suggested?
        Dr. Richter. Thanks for that question.
        The three remaining groundwater recharge projects that we
    are proposing blend, as I mentioned, traditional infrastructure
    with natural infrastructure, but they're local in nature and
    it's reasonable that any one of them could be implemented in a
    two-to-five-year timeframe. Other alternatives that augment
    supplies from much farther away, like the importation of water
    from the Colorado River that have been proposed by others in
    the past, would take much, much longer to implement.
        Senator Kelly. Yes, I imagine getting Colorado River water
    all the way into Cochise County would be a huge undertaking.
        Second question for you, Dr. Richter. What has been the
    role of the Department of Army in your work and should the
    Bureau of Reclamation prioritize projects that promote military
    readiness?
        Dr. Richter. Yes, Fort Huachuca has been a leader in both
    water conservation and reuse as well as an incredible partner
    to the region. In the 15 years between 1995 and 2010, Fort
    Huachuca reduced their groundwater pumping by 60 percent
    through water conservation and reuse projects. But they also
    worked with the 20 stakeholders of the Upper San Pedro
    Partnership on collaborative efforts to conserve regional water
    supplies and the partners have collectively reduced the
    regional overdraft of the aquifer from 13,500 acre-feet that
    was projected back in 2010 to only 4,600 acre-feet. That's a
    dramatic improvement.
        Senator Kelly. So the use from the aquifer now is 4,600
    acre-feet?
        Dr. Richter. That was our last estimate back in 2010 and,
    unfortunately, funding has not been available in recent years
    to calculate that annual regional groundwater budget, as
    additional projects have come online since then.
        Senator Kelly. Well, we have seen, you know, across Arizona
    communities like Fort Huachuca that have reduced their water
    consumption, 60 percent is significant.
        Dr. Richter, I want to switch to another part of our state,
    Northern Arizona. Northern Arizona does not, well, Arizona does
    not depend on the Colorado River alone for its water supply, as
    you stated earlier. The Verde and Salt Rivers also transport
    snowmelt, rainwater and groundwater from our national forests
    into hard infrastructure reservoirs. Over the past two decades
    more than 2.9 million acres of forests in the Verde and Salt
    Watersheds have been ravaged by wildfires and our watersheds
    still have not fully recovered. Elevated levels of sediment
    from our forest are draining into Horseshoe Dam and Roosevelt
    Dam which has reduced their storage capacity. Should the
    definition of natural infrastructure apply to our national
    forests at the Bureau of Reclamation?
        Dr. Richter. Yes, and again, it's that combination of both
    traditional infrastructure and natural infrastructure that's
    really needed to address water security in Western watersheds
    like the Verde and the Salt. The health of not only our
    national forests but the entire watershed will dictate how much
    water moves through the system and how much is generated for
    human uses downstream. Yet, in addition to storage of adequate
    water supplies for large metropolitan areas with substantial
    water demands like Phoenix, will also require continued hard
    infrastructure approaches for storage.
        So in the long run the two are very intertwined and if we
    drop the ball and manage our natural infrastructure poorly,
    we'll have negative consequences to our traditional
    infrastructure investments, like surface water reservoirs.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, Dr. Richter.
        Now from the great State of Colorado, we have Senator
    Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Sorry about that, I was just shutting
    my door to be able to turn my mute off.
        Thank you for your public service. I appreciate all that
    you do.
        As snowfall decreases and snowmelt occurs earlier in the
    season, we need to find ways to retain water at higher
    elevations throughout the West to make sure that we get runoff
    for the summer season, the growing season, when we need it
    most. Arguably, the best way to do this is not with large dams,
    but with many small ponds, catchments. Currently, there's a
    tangled web of regulations and studies that need to be
    navigated to build wildlife water catchment structures on BLM
    or Forest Service land. The cost of equipment necessary to
    build these small catchments would be low. The risk resulting
    from a breach would also be low and many small and very small
    ponds and catchments would ensure that streams and rivers could
    deliver water for agriculture, for fisheries, for recreation,
    throughout the season.
        How can we prioritize projects improving water holding on
    our public lands and how can we ensure that the research
    involves grazing and recreational lease holders, both, some of
    who have been on these lands for generations?
        Senator Kelly. I believe that question was for Dr. Richter?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, I'm sorry.
        Senator Kelly. And I think you are muted, Dr. Richter.
        Dr. Richter. There we go. That should be better.
        Senator Kelly. All right.
        Dr. Richter. Yeah, again, natural storage solutions can
    really enhance, not only those high elevation areas like the
    headwaters up in the Rockies that have impacts downstream
    throughout the watersheds of the Colorado River Basin, but also
    for those producers that work up in those communities that
    require adequate groundwater for the irrigation of pastures and
    the production of forage, in addition to quality habitat. So
    the diversity of locations from those very high headwaters in
    the Rockies all the way down through the lower Colorado River
    Basin, to the delta, there's such an array of different
    settings where we can distribute natural storage and make it
    available for local communities and water users in the
    agricultural sector, in the industrial sector and
    municipalities, but that disperse nature of storage is very
    important to have access at all those different settings,
    including the wonderful headwaters of the Colorado.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, we always like to call Colorado
    the Headwater State because, aside from one very small corner
    of the state, all the rivers in Colorado start in Colorado and
    fall out of Colorado.
        Let me go a little bit on the rising temperature issue. I
    think it is a real and meaningful threat to cold water
    fisheries and a lot of the recreation economies that depend on
    those fisheries. In the drought year of 2018 which was
    historic, a group of Western Colorado users, including the
    Roaring Fork River, the Colorado River District, the Exxon
    Mobil Corporation, the City of Aspen, they all came together to
    save the Gold Medal Fishery on the Roaring Fork River. They
    coordinated a release of about 15,000 acre-feet of reservoir
    water to boost flows and therefore reduce temperatures. It is a
    great success story on reflecting on unusual collaboration.
        How else can we look at addressing some of the issues of
    temperature and their importance in terms of recreational uses?
        Again, and I would ask that same question of you.
        Senator Kelly. And you are muted.
        Dr. Richter. There we go.
        The mitigation of temperature as well as water supplies
    will be incredibly important for recreation as well as all of
    our other industries. And obviously, temperatures can be
    moderated by vegetation management and that's a really
    important aspect of making recreation enjoyable throughout our
    river systems, but it also affects water temperature and the
    habitats and availability of water for different uses. So,
    there's a lot of complexity to a changing climate and I
    appreciate your acknowledgement of temperature being a very
    important aspect that we need to work with, in addition to
    water availability and those two things do go hand in hand in
    many, many different situations.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. Well, thank you very much.
    Thank you, all of you, for your time on this. I yield my time--
    I have no time, so I yield back.
        Senator Kelly. Senator Hyde-Smith, do you have an
    additional question?
        Senator Hyde-Smith. I do. Thank you very much.
        One of the things--and this is for all the members of the
    panel today--in my State of Mississippi, we have just recently
    seen too many rural communities and families suffer as a result
    of flooding from major storms and hurricanes that we have been
    having, a tremendous amount of storms. In my experience with
    working to find solutions that can withstand damage caused by
    natural disasters, natural infrastructures alone simply cannot
    replace physical infrastructure and adequately protect
    communities from these catastrophic events such as the 100-year
    Mississippi River flood events or powerful storm surges that
    accompany major hurricanes.
        Given that natural disasters from wildfires, extreme heat
    and drought, and landslides continue to devastate our Western
    states, do you believe funding should be prioritized for
    natural infrastructure to replace built infrastructure as a
    priority solution that can withstand the destruction that is
    caused by these natural disasters?
        We will start with Dr. Cochran on that.
        Dr. Cochran. Thank you for the question, Senator Hyde-
    Smith.
        You know, for me, it's less of a question of, kind of,
    natural infrastructure or built infrastructure prioritization,
    it's just the fact that it was 1950 when most of the
    Reclamation projects were built and 1970 when a lot of the
    clean water infrastructure was built and we're just way overdue
    for a major water investment, writ large, across the board. And
    as we're thinking about how we build our cities, how we manage
    farms, thinking about that role that nature plays right
    alongside things like seawalls and conveyance pipes and
    wastewater treatment plants, all of that is part of a system
    and a matrix that communities haven't really had the freedom to
    choose which types of solutions they've wanted relative to
    water infrastructure for a long time.
        So a big part of what's needed is really prioritizing the
    outcomes that Congress and communities want which is, for us,
    improved economic inclusion, improved human health and improved
    environmental resilience.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And Tony Larson.
        Mr. Larson. All right. What we have seen with the Bureau of
    Reclamation is what I would consider unintended consequences.
    And so, it may be the stated goal that prioritizing or, excuse
    me, natural infrastructure should not be prioritized.
    Inevitably, if this is becoming, if this becomes part of
    Reclamation's mission, it very well likely could adversely
    impact the projects you're talking about, Senator, projects
    that are brick and mortar, gray construction. And so, again,
    our concern is to make sure that if this goes forward, that
    it's very clear to the Bureau of Reclamation and everyone else
    that natural infrastructure projects are in no way prioritized
    above other projects that are very important as well.
        And you stated, Senator, very well, why those brick and
    mortar, gray projects are very important to Mississippi and
    other states. So we just would be very cautionary about adding
    a mission to Reclamation's plate and think that it's not going
    to impact how they prioritize the limited funding that they're
    given.
        Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And Mr. Stern.
        Mr. Stern. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        You know, CRS doesn't make any sort of recommendations on
    an issue such as this, but it's a complex question and I think
    we'd be glad to get back to you, for the record, with any sort
    of additional analysis that you would find helpful in this
    question of prioritization of natural infrastructure projects
    over built infrastructure.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you.
        I think my time is up again, unless you will let me
    continue.
        Senator Kelly. You can continue.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. I just have one more and I guess we can
    direct this to Tony Larson.
        Do you agree that the public, including state and local
    municipalities, deserve to understand the cost benefits and
    scientific rationale behind federal disaster mitigation
    strategies that we have some transparency there of how we came
    about this?
        Mr. Larson. Well, absolutely, Senator. The more
    transparency, the better, and in terms of cost benefit
    analysis, that's really the gist of what we're talking about.
    We're in no way saying natural infrastructure is not a good
    thing. It's just that you have to look at the costs that's
    added, that gets added to projects, impact to timelines and
    construction and make an informed decision. So yes, the more
    transparency, the better to ensure that the best decisions
    possible are being made.
        So thank you for the question, Senator.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes, I have had that discussion with
    many agencies that they would like that.
        Thank you.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
        I believe there are no other members wishing to speak, so
    this concludes our hearing.
        Dr. Cochran, Mr. Larson, Dr. Richter, Mr. Stern, thank you
    all for your testimony.
        The Subcommittee's hearing record will remain open for two
    weeks. Members have until Thursday at 6:00 p.m. to submit
    additional questions for the record.
        Thank you, everybody.
        And the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  [all]