[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]