[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]