[Senate Hearing 117-63]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                  S.   Hrg. 117-63

                   THE ROLE OF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED 
                   FEATURES IN WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                             JUNE 24, 2021

                               ----------                              

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-446 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
 
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                             JUNE 24, 2021
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelly More, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Bridges, Todd, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Environmental 
  Science, United States Army Corps of Engineers.................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Cramer........    17
Galloway, Gerry, Ph.D., Research Professor, Glenn L. Martin 
  Institute, Professor of Engineering, Civil, and Environmental 
  Engineering, University of Maryland............................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    31
Chiason, Chett, Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port 
  Commission.....................................................    42
    Prepared statement...........................................    44
Ufner, Julie, President and CEO, National Waterways Conference...   105
    Prepared statement...........................................   107
Johnson, Rick, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Flood Control 
  Agency.........................................................   116
    Prepared statement...........................................   118

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

River Restoration American Rivers Testimony......................   147
American Society of Civil Engineers
    ASCE Report Card Compressed--Part 1..........................   156
    ASCE Report Card Compressed--Part 2..........................   189
    ASCE Report Card Compressed--Part 3..........................   227
    ASCE Report Card Compressed--Part 4..........................   260
    ASCE Report Card Compressed--Part 5..........................   294
Bob Marshall, New Orleans Times..................................   328
National Wildlife Federation; Jobs, Restoration and Resilience 
  for the 21st Century...........................................   333
Public Law 113-2 January 29, 2013................................   346
Picture A: Bethany Pre Nourishment...............................   348
Picture B: Bethany Post Renourishment............................   349
Picture C: Prime Hook Before and After...........................   350
Restore America's Estuaries; Jobs & Dollars, Big Returns from 
  Coastal Habitat Restoration....................................   351
US Army Corps of Engineers
    USACE--Dam Safety Facts and Figures..........................   359
    USACE--Implementation Guidance for Section 1149 of WRDA 2016.   361
    USACE--Implementation Guidance for Section 1184 of WRDA 2016.   366
    USACE--Levee Safety Program; Levee Portfolio Report 2018.....   371
    USACE--PB 2019-03; Further Clarification of Existing Policy 
      for USACE Participation in Nonstructural Flood Risk 
      Management and Coastal Storm Risk Management Measures......   519

 
   THE ROLE OF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED FEATURES IN WATER RESOURCES 
                                PROJECTS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Kelly, Wicker, 
Sullivan, Ernst.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. We are pleased to 
call this hearing to order this morning.
    To our witnesses, Dr. Bridges, when I say Dr. Bridges, my 
sister and I grew up in Danville, Virginia, born in West 
Virginia, but grew up in Danville, Virginia. Right across the 
street from our house was Woodlawn Baptist Church, where our 
minister was Dr. Bridges, so I feel we should open with prayer, 
but maybe for another day.
    Glad to see you, Dr. Galloway. Dr. Galloway, would you 
raise your hand for us, please? Dr. Galloway, nice to see you. 
How many years in the Army?
    Mr. Galloway. Thirty-eight.
    Senator Carper. Thirty-eight, but who is counting? That is 
great. Thank you for all those years.
    Then, we will just call on Chett. Great to see you, Chett. 
My talking points here say that I should pronounce your name 
``sha-son,'' is that right, Chiasson? Chiasson? Has your name 
ever been mispronounced?
    Mr. Chiasson. No, never.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. I am sure.
    Ms. Ufner, Julie, where are you?
    Ms. Ufner. Right here.
    Senator Carper. Julie, great to see you.
    Rick Johnson as well. Rick? Thank you. We welcome you, one 
and all. Thanks for joining us today, not only thanks for what 
you do with your lives, for our Country and for our planet.
    I also want to thank Ranking Member Senator Capito and 
everyone on our committee, all the members of our committee. I 
want to thank our staffs for doing the work in preparation for 
this committee and giving us a chance to hopefully serve as an 
example for the Congress, advancing things like our bipartisan 
water infrastructure legislation that passed the Senate 
unanimously, 89 to 2 out of here, committee on a unanimous 
basis, followed by our surface transportation legislation, 
which we passed out of here last month on a unanimous vote. So 
we try to set an example. We are a workhorse committee, and we 
like being a workhorse committee.
    I hope we are going to continue this track record as we 
start to work on the next Water Resources Development Act.
    As we get started on that legislation, it is important to 
reflect on the work being done by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to address our Nation's water resource infrastructure 
needs. Throughout much of the 20th century, the Army Corps has 
successfully provided communities across our Country, including 
our communities especially, with protection from powerful 
floods and helped shippers navigate our waterways safely to 
support trade and our economy.
    With the support of Congress, the Corps has evolved its 
planning practices to consider projects that do not solely rely 
on steel and concrete, but also incorporate approaches that 
work in concert with nature itself. All too often, in the past, 
these nature-based approaches have failed to make it past the 
planning stages.
    Fortunately, however, in my home State of Delaware and 
other parts of our Country, we are beginning to witness more 
frequently the benefits that these natural infrastructure 
projects can bring not just to our economy, but to our 
environment.
    One example, for us close to home, is Bethany Beach, 
Delaware, which is located midway between Rehoboth Beach and 
Ocean City, Maryland. Rather than relying solely on seawalls 
and other hard surfaces that will decay and age in time, this 
project uses dredged materials to construct dunes and to place 
sand to protect coastal communities from hurricanes and other 
storms. We don't get a lot of hurricanes in Delaware. We get a 
lot of Nor'easters, which can be even tougher than hurricanes 
to deal with.
    I think we have a picture here, somewhere. Do we have a 
picture? There it is; a picture of Bethany Beach in 2007 before 
this natural infrastructure project. Where is the beach, you 
ask? Well, it is underneath that project, or it looks like a 
series of buildings on the right.
    That is what Bethany Beach looks like today. There we go. 
What a difference a day makes. It actually not a day, what a 
difference a decade makes. We have come a long, long way, as 
you can see.
    Like many of our States, Delaware's economy relies in no 
small part on tourism, and supports our five-star beaches, 
which is critical. This project protects more than just homes; 
it protects Delaware jobs and it protects our economy, too.
    The Corps is not the only Federal agency using natural 
infrastructure. In 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
completed the restoration of Fowler Beach at Delaware's Prime 
Hook National Wildlife Refuge, a great project I am happy to be 
involved in. That is what it looked like, on the left, that is 
what it looks like today. Here, you can see before, on the 
left, and after the restoration on the right. We chose to work 
with mother nature. It is pretty amazing what the 
transformation has been.
    This project has provided crucial habitats for threatened 
and endangered species, all while reducing the risk of flooding 
in nearby communities. In addition to protecting Delaware and 
the communities found along our Nation's coastlines, the Army 
Corps has also provided critical support to our navigation 
channels, including construction and maintenance of one of our 
most vital shipping arteries in the American economy, and that 
is the Mississippi River.
    Over time, the Corps has significantly altered both the 
course and the banks of the river through and system of dams 
and levees. While this system of flood control structures has 
protected communities from flooding and supported commerce, it 
has also had the unintended consequence of accelerating land 
loss in Southern Louisiana.
    The Corps' infrastructure along the Mississippi restricts 
the river's natural placement of nutrient-rich sediment, which 
is essential for fish and other wildlife habitat, while also 
providing significant protection from hurricanes and storms.
    Sadly, also amazingly, Louisiana loses, on average, a 
football field of land every one-hundred minutes. I had my 
staff double-check that. A football field of land every 100 
minutes, just think about that, due to sea level rise caused by 
climate change, and our existing infrastructure is not making 
it better, but appears to be making it worse.
    Louisiana's Port Fourchon is a vital economic driver for 
the Nation and has recognized the problem there and taken 
critical steps to increase local resiliency by using both gray 
and natural infrastructure together. Not just one, but both.
    The port has worked to create hundreds of acres of 
marshlands to help reduce the impacts of storm surges, promote 
tourism, and rebuild Louisiana's ecosystem.
    Incorporating natural infrastructure elements in the Corps' 
Civil Works projects can have real benefits, like those see in 
my home State or in Louisiana, but as I mentioned, the use of 
these features is still the exception rather than the rule.
    That is largely because the Corps' current budgeting 
practices fail to capture all the benefits of natural 
infrastructure, especially when that infrastructure can lessen 
the impact of a future storm or natural disaster. For example, 
in budgeting for a project, the Corps currently does not count 
any damage avoided from future storms as a project benefit, and 
that is something that we believe that needs to be changed.
    Today, we hope to explore the Corps' progress in using 
natural infrastructure and to understand how the Corps will 
incorporate natural infrastructure into its future planning for 
Civil Works projects. I am sure Dr. Bridges has some answers, 
and we look forward to his testimony.
    The Corps has a great motto. I hope I get this right: 
``Essayons.'' I think that is right, something like that. It 
means ``let us try.'' Let us try, and while we know the Corps 
can engineer solutions for the Nation's toughest water resource 
challenges, when it comes to incorporating natural and nature--
based features, it is time for us to move on to ``let us do.'' 
Let us do.
    With that, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Senator 
Capito, for her opening remarks. I am delighted to be with you, 
Senator Capito, and grateful to you and your staff for working 
with us on this.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
welcome our witnesses. I look forward to this testimony. The 
timing and focus of this hearing is appropriate, as we passed 
WRDA out a year ago. In WRDA, as we know, Congress authorizes 
water resources projects and set National policies for the 
Civil Works Program for the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
    From navigation to flood risk management, these projects 
are critical to the economic opportunity and safety of millions 
of Americans. I look forward to building on the bipartisan 
consensus, that the Chairman was speaking about, that we have 
already achieved on infrastructure policy in this committee by 
staying on a biannual schedule of moving WRDA legislation to 
enactment.
    The role of natural and nature-based features, or natural 
infrastructure, in water resource projects has been discussed 
by this committee for years and incorporated into previous 
legislation. Most significantly, in 2016, with the Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. In that 
legislation, Congress defined natural and nature-based features 
and included them, among other measures, to be considered in 
the Corps' feasibility study process for flood risk management, 
storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects.
    This was in recognition of the role natural infrastructure 
can play in achieving the Corps' mission areas while producing 
other benefits. For example, a wetland in coastal Louisiana may 
help protect communities from hurricane damage as well as 
provide ecological habitat. A levee setback on the Missouri 
River can reconnect the floodplain to the river while lessening 
flood risk to the surrounding community.
    In the 2016 bill, Congress also reiterated the essential 
partnership between the Corps and non-Federal sponsors in 
undertaking such projects, requiring that natural and nature-
based features be considered with the consent of the non-
Federal sponsor. This is the crux of what we are discussing 
today.
    Natural infrastructure is an important tool in our toolbox 
that ought to be available for the consideration and 
application in water resource projects where practicable, cost-
effective, and with the buy-in of those communities partnering 
with the Corps.
    It is not a panacea on its own, however, as we all know. 
Natural infrastructure often works in concert with traditional 
infrastructure. In some cases, structural solutions alone may 
be the only viable solution to a water resource infrastructure 
issue.
    Take my home State of West Virginia. While we have a 
history of terrible floods, our topography is not naturally 
conducive to the implementation of many of the frequently cited 
examples of natural infrastructure. That is why the work being 
done by the Corps, the non-Federal sponsors, and other 
stakeholders to advance our understanding of natural 
infrastructure through research and real-world experience is so 
very important.
    The Engineering with Nature Initiative the Corps is leading 
is one example. The initiative's work is informed by research 
being performed at the U.S. Army's Engineer Research and 
Development Center, and in collaboration with partners across 
the globe in both the public and private sectors. The 
collection, summation, and dissemination of natural 
infrastructure best practices on an international scale will 
inform our decisions as policymakers and provide communities 
with the knowledge necessary to decide what works best for 
them.
    Private industry is also lending its expertise. In April 
2019, the chairman and I hosted a briefing featuring both Dr. 
Bridges and representatives from the Natural Infrastructure 
Initiative, a partnership between various public and private 
stakeholders regarding the work that is already underway.
    It is important that as policymakers, we continue to 
broaden our understanding through these and other efforts. We 
need to understand the benefits and costs of incorporating 
natural and nature-based features in Corps projects, both in 
the short-term and over the lifespan of the project. This 
includes the effect of these approaches on operations and 
maintenance. We also need to better understand where it makes 
sense to incorporate these features. It may not make sense in 
every project.
    Furthering our conceptual and practical knowledge of 
natural infrastructure will help us make smart investments in 
water resource projects that yield multiple benefits.
    The missions of the Corps are as important today as at any 
time in our Nation's history. I look forward to hearing from 
our witnesses about how we can continue to support these 
missions, the missions of the Corps, using every tool 
available.
    Thank you again for being with us today. I think we are 
going to have some stops and starts today, but we are here for 
you, and you are here for us. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    We have two panels today, two panels of witnesses. I am 
going to turn to our first panel now. I would like to introduce 
briefly Dr. Todd Bridges for his testimony. Dr. Bridges is a 
Senior Scientist for the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering 
with Nature program. This is the program that is working on 
advancing natural and nature-based features and features 
engineering standards within the Corps.
    Dr. Bridges, we welcome you. You may proceed with your 
testimony at this time. Thank you.

 STATEMENT OF TODD BRIDGES, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, 
  ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Mr. Bridges. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member and 
members of the committee. I am honored to testify before you 
today.
    I am the U.S. Army's Senior Research Scientist for 
Environmental Science at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and 
Development Center. Among other responsibilities, I serve as 
the national lead for the Corps of Engineers Engineering with 
Nature Initiative that is working to support sustainable, 
resilient infrastructure systems for the twenty-first century.
    In the United States, we are blessed with an abundance of 
natural capital: 3,000 miles of barrier islands along our 
coastlines, thousands of miles of mainland beaches and dune, 
and a hundred million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 States. 
Wetlands along the northeast Atlantic Coast helped to avert 
$625 million of flood damage during Hurricane Sandy, and the 
500,000 acres of mangroves around Florida helped to avert more 
than $1.5 billion in flood damages during Hurricane Irma in 
2017.
    Our work in nature-based solutions is informed by our 
definition of nature-based solutions. That is, it refers to the 
intentional and substantial use of natural systems to support 
water resources solutions. The Corps of Engineers has made 
significant use of such approaches for decades, and in 2010, 
the Corps of Engineers established the Engineering with Nature 
Initiative to advance the integration of human engineering and 
natural systems.
    We have published two volumes of ``Engineering with Nature: 
An Atlas.'' These books showcase 118 examples of constructed 
projects around the world that illustrate what engineering with 
nature practice looks like, along with the economic, 
environmental, and social benefits they produce. Fifty of these 
projects were built by the Corps of Engineers. Example projects 
include Horseshoe Bend Island in the Atchafalaya River of 
Louisiana that was constructed through beneficial use of 
sediment dredged from the navigation channel. The island is 
providing 80 acres of habitat.
    Hamilton and Sears Point Wetland projects in California are 
restoring 1,500 acres of wetlands while supporting coastal 
resilience with respect to sea level rise.
    Our work on Engineering with Nature over the last decade 
has allowed us to identify many of the key enablers for 
advancing engineering with nature. Including developing new 
science and engineering practices, fostering creative planning 
and design, documenting the diverse benefits of nature-based 
solutions, communicating widely to facilitate progress, 
preparing practitioners through education and training, and 
leveraging the power of collaboration across organizations and 
sectors to innovate.
    Likewise, we have recognized that challenges exist. 
Conventional and nature-based solutions may not align with the 
community's vision, all solutions, whether conventional or 
nature-based, require land to build the solutions at the scale 
the problems require, and hesitancy regarding new engineering 
practice.
    We are fueling our progress through collaboration and 
partnering. The Corps of Engineers established the network for 
Engineering with Nature with the University of Georgia in 2020 
to engage across sectors and universities around the Country, 
including the University of Florida, the University of 
Oklahoma, Arizona State University, and the University of 
Delaware, among others.
    We are partnering with other government agencies at the 
Federal and State level, such as NOAA, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the California Department of Water Resources. 
The Corps of Engineers partnered with the State of Mississippi 
and the National Parks Service and others in restoring Cat and 
Ship Islands and many other projects to create one of the most 
mature networks of nature-based solutions in the Country.
    The Corps of Engineers has established Engineering with 
Nature Practice Leads for coastal and river applications that 
complement the leadership being provided by six Engineering 
with Nature proving grounds, established at the Galveston, 
Buffalo, Philadelphia, Mobile, San Francisco, and Saint Louis 
Districts of the Corps.
    Dialogue and collaboration with the private sector, non-
profits, and finance institutions is helping us understand the 
business case for nature-based solutions.
    We are collaborating across the Department of Defense also 
to support mission resilience through engineering with nature, 
including the Reef Fence Program and the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, and the $5 billion rebuild 
of Tyndall Air Force Base following Hurricane Michael.
    Nature-based solutions are being built around the world as 
stand-alone projects and in combination with conventional 
engineering to produce multi-purpose benefits.
    Finally, I would like to thank you again for the invitation 
to testify before the committee. I look forward to answering 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bridges follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Dr. Bridges, we thank you for that.
    I have a couple of questions. Let me just start. The first 
one, as you know the last couple of water bills have been 
directing the Corps to incorporate natural infrastructure 
features into its projects. The Corps Research and its 
Engineering with Nature program has issued natural and nature-
based infrastructure design concepts for the agency to use in 
planning projects that address flood risks and also address and 
reduce storm damage.
    My question is, how is the Corps doing in its efforts to 
implement natural infrastructure and resiliency features in 
areas beyond project planning, such as engineering and also 
project construction?
    Mr. Bridges. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator. I 
think we are doing well and making progress in implementing 
these concepts and the science and engineering practice 
associated with these projects. As I mentioned in my remarks, 
we have example projects within the Corps of Engineers that 
literally go back decades, even a hundred years, which were 
utilizing the principles and practices that we associate and 
what we call Engineering with Nature today, and what we are 
endeavoring to do through the initiative is to make the 
exceptional projects of the past more commonplace in the future 
and find us a more harmonious arrangement between----
    Senator Carper. It reminds me of the movie Back to the 
Future.
    Mr. Bridges [continuing]. to find a more harmonious 
arrangement between the natural and the engineered.
    The challenges that many of our commuters are experiencing 
with respect to flooding or drought and wildfires do call for 
innovation, and how we comprise solutions for our communities, 
but I think progress is being made across the span of 
functional areas that you mentioned, including planning and 
design and construction, and the Engineering with Nature 
Atlases that I referenced, the 118 projects from across the 
world, 50 of those projects constructed by the Corps of 
Engineers over the recent decades illustrate that progress in 
practice.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. We have heard time and time 
again that the Corps has minimally incorporated natural and 
nature-based features into its designs, and as I understand it, 
this is due in large part to the way the agency's benefit to 
cost ratio value the natural infrastructure.
    When my staff has discussed the issue with the Corps, they 
are constantly told that the costs and the benefits are not 
able to be fully calculated, because so many of the benefits, 
including health, including life, and including safety are, to 
be honest with you, hard to quantify. For example, the Corps 
does not fully quantify the savings from avoiding Federal 
disaster relief when a flood control structure operates as 
intended, or the benefits that could cause the engineered beach 
dunes protecting the businesses and homes in a storm.
    My question is this: in your opinion, what are the missing 
benefits that the Corps is not accounting for in the benefit to 
cost ratio in the project development process? Do you have some 
thoughts you would like to share with us today on how to 
improve the cost-benefit ratio analysis?
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    I am a scientist in my work, and our focus within the 
Engineering with Nature Initiative is to understand how 
projects produce benefits and, to the extent that we can, 
measure those benefits, supported by sound science.
    Sound science hopefully provides a solid foundation upon 
which to build sound policy, but policy development is part of 
the stick that I don't personally whittle on. It is determined 
by others, but what we are doing in the initiative is 
documenting benefits that are being created by existing 
projects within the Corps so that we can learn from what those 
projects are doing, how they are functioning, how they are 
performing over time, and so we are in a position to be able to 
incorporate that kind of information as a part of future 
practice, whether it is planning or whether it is engineering 
and design and function.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Let me turn to Senator Capito, and then I think we have 
Senator Cardin on WebEx, as well, who chairs our Infrastructure 
Subcommittee. Senator Capito?
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Bridges, thank you for being here today. Our staff from 
this committee actually visited down at Vicksburg at the U.S. 
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and they saw 
firsthand a lot of the research that you are doing. Thank you 
for hosting them there.
    What I would like to ask is, since you have begun and the 
Corps has begun in this endeavor, what gaps are you still 
identifying that you might be able to be working on for the 
future for the next 10 to 20 years? Are you able to identify 
those for the long-term longevity of such projects?
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    There are gaps that are related to technical issues that we 
have with these kinds of projects. As I mentioned, 
understanding fundamentally how they produce benefits, so, 
going to those projects and measuring them.
    But there are also gaps in respect to communicating about 
projects across a large enterprise like the Corps of Engineers. 
That is one of the points of emphasis we have made within the 
Engineering with Nature initiative is to share information more 
broadly across the Corps of Engineers and with our partners and 
stakeholders about good practice examples that are 
incorporating natural systems into engineering projects.
    There is always going to be a need, for example, for 
technical guidance on how to plan, how to design, how to 
operate projects that include this combination of the natural 
and the engineered. We have been leading an effort, Engineering 
with Nature has been leading an international effort for the 
last 5 years to develop technical guidelines on the use of 
natural and nature-based features for flood risk management 
with an international consortium that includes the Environment 
Agency in England as well as the Rijkswaterstaat in the 
Netherlands or the 75 organizations and the 170 contributors 
around the globe drawing together practice and experience 
implementing these kinds of solutions.
    We will be publishing this 1,000-page technical guide and 
complementing it with a shorter, 40-page version to provide 
people an introduction to what this kind of practice looks 
like.
    So, we are working to fill gaps and to document progress 
widely across our organization and others so that we can, in 
fact, implement more projects of this nature in the future 
consistent with sound practice.
    Senator Capito. When using natural or nature-based 
infrastructure, what is the maintenance and longevity of that 
project as compared to what you might think of as a more 
traditional type of infrastructure?
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Wetlands 
have existed for millennia, so they have longevity.
    Senator Capito. Right. They self-create.
    Mr. Bridges. Yes. And so, when we approach the design of 
these systems, these nature-based systems, we want to follow 
mother nature's lead, if you will, so that these projects, 
these features within the projects can be sustained over time. 
Maintenance of projects over decades, of course, is an area of 
uncertainty for conventional as well as it is for nature-based, 
and something that we look forward to gaining more experience 
on.
    We have recently gone back to some decades-old projects 
where we have used, for example, beneficial sediment dredged 
from projects and built islands and wetlands in the 1970's. We 
have gone back to those projects recently to look at, well, how 
did those projects perform, and in fact, they performed quite 
well. So, we can learn from that in future efforts to design 
projects to provide the services that we are looking for 
through Engineering with Nature.
    Senator Capito. Right. Obviously, I am on Appropriations as 
well, and obviously, when you think about the massive 
investments that the Corps makes and the massive structures 
that are built or those massive problems that they are 
addressing, anything that could last longer and be more cost-
effective is always at the top of the list. Maybe some of these 
solutions, while they might be more expensive on the front-end, 
on the back-end, they might end up actually being cost-saving 
and have a lot of other external benefits. I kind of went out 
on a limb there and said in West Virginia, we have a lot of 
rivers, and we have a lot of flash floods. Most of the pictures 
that you showed were coastline pictures. Do you find that this 
type of solution works better on a coast, or is more effective 
that say, on riverbanks and more rapid flow water, which is 
what we experience in my State, with the mountainous terrain?
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think 
they are great examples of practice across the full spectrum of 
the landscapes we have in the United States. The atlases are 
intended to expose our many inland, ravines, small rivers, and 
streams, as well as more mountainous examples, including places 
like Scotland, which has very steep terrain, and they are 
working across their landscape to implement and to intervene in 
the system to slow down water and spread water out so that it 
doesn't pile up on communities in the form of floods.
    I was recently made aware of an example from the city of 
Huntington in West Virginia, where the city itself is 
experiencing repeated flooding due to high rainfall events, and 
the city is itself investing in nature-based solutions to 
relieve its overwhelmed stormwater management system.
    With Engineering with Nature, what we are talking about is 
looking across the entire landscape to find ways in which we 
can implement solutions like that to relieve the burden from 
the conventional infrastructure by spreading it out and slowing 
it down, so in the case of Scotland and England, they are 
investing in reforestation in cases, or using features like 
what they call leaky dams, hundreds of these, in which they are 
putting these temporary wooden structures in place to be able 
to slow the water down, to keep it from piling up on villages 
downstream within the watershed.
    It is a distributed approach in places that have topography 
like West Virginia, as opposed to flatter terrains, say, in the 
State of Oklahoma or Kansas or Missouri, where these kinds of 
features in the form of levee setbacks and other applications 
have been used by the Corps and other agencies to incorporate 
natural floodplains into flood risk design.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Senator Carper. Thanks. I think we have been joined on 
WebEx by Senator Cardin. Ben, are you there?
    Senator Cardin. I am there, Senator Carper. Thank you very 
much.
    Senator Carper. My neighbor, my Delmarva buddy.
    Senator Cardin. Right. Thank you.
    Dr. Bridges, I want to talk about two of my favorite 
natural pipe projects that we have in the State of Maryland and 
talk about some of the obstacles that we have had on moving 
these forward and get your assessment of how we can encourage 
these types of restoration projects. One is Poplar Island, 
which is a site that was a previously habitable island in the 
Chesapeake Bay that almost completely disappeared because of 
erosion and sea level change, which was restored using dredged 
material, and now is over 1,000, well, in mid-bay, we have 766 
acres of wetlands that have been restored, 829 acres of upland 
habitat for the Chesapeake Bay wildlife that have been 
restored.
    Poplar Island is just about completed, but it acts as a 
real plus for our environmental restoration of the Chesapeake 
Bay by bringing back to life islands that used to exist in the 
Chesapeake Bay that helped us deal with the quality of the 
water, as well as the viability of the habitat of the 
Chesapeake Bay.
    We have another project that is moving forward, Mid-Bay, 
which would be the next project to restore another island on 
the Chesapeake Bay. I mention it because the analysis that is 
used on this, we have analysis based upon the environmental 
value of these projects, not just the economic direct costs 
from shipping that is done on dredged material, but we can use 
a broader evaluation so that these projects can move forward, 
because they may appear to cost more, to Senator Capito's 
point, but in the long run, they are of much more cost-benefit 
to our entire challenge on protecting our environment as well 
as making sure we have commerce where are channels are dredged.
    The second is Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, which has lost so 
much of its wetlands as a result of sea level change, erosion, 
the nutrient issue that we now have under eradication, all that 
has caused Blackwater a significant amount of its wetland's 
protection. We have found that by using dredged material, even 
though it costs a little more to get it there, you can restore 
wetlands and protect this wildlife refuge, which is such a 
valuable part of our ecosystem. You can now go to Blackwater 
just about any day and see so many bald eagles. It is one of 
our great treasures.
    So, my question to you: how do we encourage the proper 
evaluation of these types of projects? Here, we are using 
dredged material, which if you look at it from the strict 
economic point of view, you will never get these projects 
moving, but if you take a more holistic approach, we can use 
these approaches to not only keep our channels dredged by using 
materials that otherwise we have a hard time finding a location 
to dispose of, but we also can restore our environment at the 
same time.
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you for the question, Senator. There is 
a lot to unpack in what you presented and what you asked about, 
but I will start at the end and just say that there is great 
opportunity to beneficially use dredged sediment to create the 
kind of value and benefit that you highlighted with the 
examples that you listed.
    In round numbers, we dredge, across the Corps of Engineers, 
about 200 million cubic yards of sediment every year. We 
beneficially use on the order of 30 to 40 percent of that now. 
It is a very active discussion and area of technical activity 
and research, how we can used dredged material beneficially 
within our programs, how to make those kinds of projects more 
affordable, which is a key element of making our navigation 
program sustainable, and of course, the projects that would be 
produced through beneficial use.
    I am happy to say that, from my point of view, our 
Baltimore District is quite experienced and has been very 
successful in using dredged material beneficially for many, 
many years. I mentioned in my testimony that we recently named 
four practice leads for coastal and ravine engineering with 
Nature Practice. One of our coastal practice leads is in 
Baltimore District and has been involved in many island 
restoration projects and wetland restoration projects in 
Maryland using dredged material beneficially.
    One of those projects underway right now at Swan Island in 
Maryland is a partnership between ourselves and the Baltimore 
District and the State of Maryland and NOAA where we are 
examining the benefits that are being created, both from a 
physical point of view in terms of wave attenuation to the 
community in Ewell, Maryland, as well as the ecological 
benefits that are being generated from that project. We have 
been documenting beneficial use projects being produced by 
Baltimore in Maryland, and there is a lot of practice, good 
practice, that has been produced and exemplified through those 
projects that we are sharing across the Corps of Engineers.
    The Blackwater Refuge Project, I visited that project 
myself, and the work that they are doing there using dredged 
material beneficially and thin-layer placement. In fact, the 
Blackwater Refuge is one of the projects we highlight in the 
Engineering with Nature Atlases, so there is a lot of progress 
being made.
    There is a lot of progress to reference within the 
Chesapeake Bay and within the Baltimore District's work with 
its partners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and others, and 
sharing that practice across the floor, I believe, is going to 
provide a great foundation for more beneficial use in the 
future.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you for that response.
    I would just add that, if there are areas that we can, as 
policymakers do, particularly as it relates to how your 
projects are evaluated from a budget point of view, let us 
know, because it is exciting to hear what you are saying. We 
can do better, and I think we can perhaps help you with some of 
what we do here in setting the policy evaluation standards. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you, Senator. We would be happy to 
follow-up with you about that.
    Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thanks.
    We have been joined by Senator Kelly from Arizona. Before 
we start the clock on Senator Kelly, we were talking on the 
Senate floor earlier this week about the kind of extreme 
weather and extreme temperatures that you are facing. We were 
talking earlier today about how, in the State of Louisiana, 
they lose to the sea about one football field of land every one 
hundred minutes, and so we have that extreme at one side of the 
Country, and a far different kind of challenges.
    Give us just a quick update on what is going on with this 
front in your State, please.
    Senator Kelly. Well, we have got the worst fire season on 
record. I was up looking at the Telegraph and the Mescal fires, 
flew up to Northern Arizona. Last week, I went up to Flagstaff 
to look at a fire called the Backbone Fire. We have hundreds of 
thousands of acres burned, we have temperatures in the Phoenix 
area that have been a week above 115 degrees, a week above 110 
in Tucson. Even in Northern Arizona, temperature in excess of 
100 degrees, and relative humidity as low as 1 percent. I have 
never seen humidity at 1 percent before, at least not in this 
Country.
    It is a challenge. As the monsoon, we get monsoon rains, 
but often lately, it has been less rain and just the lightning. 
So you get the worst part of it, and it starts the fires. It 
has been a significant challenge in the State of Arizona.
    So Senator Romney and I are introducing a piece of 
legislation to try to form a commission to understand how do we 
do better. Right now, the Forest Service, my understanding is, 
successfully puts out, and they do a great job, they get about 
97 percent of the fires extinguished quickly. It is that other 
3 percent that we have to work on. We have to figure out a new 
technology, new ways, new approaches, procedures to do better, 
otherwise we are going to continue to see this year after year.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that update. Now we will 
start the clock.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for that opportunity. Dr. Bridges, I want to talk 
a little bit about natural infrastructure in desert climates 
first. I understand the Corps recently entered into a contract 
with Arizona State University to expand research on the use of 
natural and nature-based features in desert Southwest climates.
    So, this is connected to what we have been talking about. 
People often think of natural infrastructure as a tool to help 
coastal communities and Midwest communities with frequent risk 
of flooding. But it is good to see the Corps is acknowledging 
that nature-based engineering solutions have benefits for all 
regions of the Country. For example, understanding how to 
sustainably manage groundwater, aquifers, or protect surface 
watersheds from contamination during and after wildfires are 
pressing issues in Arizona and throughout the Southwest.
    I am hopeful that your new research partnership with ASU 
will further research in these areas. Dr. Bridges, how will the 
Engineering with Nature Initiative at the Corps benefit from 
this new partnership with ASU, and what research areas do you 
hope to focus on with ASU?
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We are 
quite excited about this partnership with Arizona State 
University. We have four main university partnerships right 
now, and we are moving West, because as you have noted, the 
challenges in the West are broad, and range all the way from 
drought and fire and flooding in the same year. In fact, fire 
can exacerbate flooding, because when you have a denuded 
landscape, the water moves off that landscape more quickly and 
carries sediment and debris with it, which can be quite 
hazardous to communities on the receiving end of those events.
    We have a range of research underway in our organization to 
focus on that, and we are looking forward to taking advantage 
of the experience and the knowledge and the innovation at 
Arizona State to work in those landscapes even beyond Arizona, 
because there is a lot in the West.
    I am personally from the West. I am sensitive to the 
challenges that are experienced in those locations. We have to 
find infrastructure solutions that address the spectrum, from 
flooding as well as, as you have mentioned, drought and fire. I 
believe the data and experience that has been accumulated 
worldwide indicates that nature-based solutions have a role to 
play across that entire spectrum. So the opportunity before us 
is how to bring all those solution sets together and to 
integrate.
    We have to have innovation to address the spectrum and the 
intensity of advancing combinations. There was a time, maybe, 
when hazards presented themselves, natural hazards presented 
themselves to us as onesies, but now we deal with twosies and 
threesies and moresies, which is a challenge for conventional 
infrastructure solutions.
    Senator Kelly. Yes, I agree that this is part of the 
solution. We also look at more physical, concrete 
infrastructure as valuable, but in the West, too, we need more 
water storage. It is a big deal for us in Arizona. What are 
some of the unique challenges with a desert landscape in coming 
up with natural-based infrastructure solutions?
    Mr. Bridges. Well, it is the extremes. As you mentioned, 
the temperatures that exist and the drought conditions as well 
as the alternation between, as I mentioned previously, drought 
and heat and then flooding that presents itself. So the 
infrastructure solutions that we have to plan and engineer have 
to deal with those combinations.
    Conventional infrastructure, if I can paint with a broad 
brush for a moment, conventional infrastructure more frequently 
is single purpose in its orientation, at least that was more 
characteristic of, I would say, the kind of 20th century 
approach to conventional infrastructure. But what we need now 
are solutions that can address this spectrum and the multiple 
hazards that can present themselves in very short periods of 
time, even within 1 year of each other.
    That presents both a planning challenge for organizations 
and partnerships as well as an engineering challenge. How do 
you design these multi-component, multi-element systems to 
address that spectrum of challenges that is characteristic, I 
think, of conditions, increasingly so, in the West.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. We only have a few seconds 
remaining. This is just a yes or no question. I assume that 
long-term stable funding for the Engineering with Nature 
Initiative would benefit the Corps and benefit the West?
    Mr. Bridges. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Dr. Bridges, I am going to ask you to 
remain with us, just for another minute or so. Senator Capito 
is going to head over to the House and the Senate floor in just 
a moment to vote. We have a couple of votes that they have 
inconveniently scheduled right in the middle of our hearing, 
but it is what it is. They haven't called it yet, but we expect 
it any minute.
    I understand Senator Wicker is on his way over here. As you 
know, his State has great interest in these issues. On a 
lighter note, I would just say I oftentimes have heard the term 
onesies; I have occasionally heard the term twosies. I have 
never heard the term moresies. It is a first in my recollection 
for this panel.
    Senator Capito. Well, if we are talking about terms, the 
term I have never heard was riverine, and that is like coastal, 
that is how you refer to river topographies.
    Mr. Bridges. Senator, there are a variety of terms used 
around the world. Some of our English colleagues prefer the 
term fluvial. That is a term in common usage.
    Senator Carper. They don't talk that way in West Virginia.
    Senator Capito. No, we don't have fluvials in West 
Virginia.
    Mr. Bridges. Another way of thinking, just more inland 
environments that are characterized by streams and rivers, like 
West Virginia, and so many other places in the Country.
    Senator Capito. Right, right. Thank you. I am going to go 
vote.
    Senator Carper. Dr. Bridges, if you would just remain with 
us for another minute or two, because I want to give a 
colleague from Mississippi a chance to ask a question or two.
    You spoke a good deal about the environmental benefits of 
your program, as you should. You mentioned documentation, that 
it is extremely important. I would just point out that those 
benefits don't always make it into the budget calculation. That 
is extremely concerning, and something we need to figure out 
how to change.
    This is because non-Federal project sponsors need to have a 
full picture of what can be achieved, what can be saved, and 
what can be prevented with all benefits of nature calculated. 
If you want to comment, you don't have to since it is not a 
question, but I would welcome a comment in response to that, if 
you will.
    Mr. Bridges. Senator, I thank you again for drawing 
attention to the importance of benefits. We are, within the 
Engineering with Nature Initiative, giving considerable 
attention to how we measure benefits and understand how those 
benefits are generated over the life of a project, especially 
projects that are combining conventional engineering approaches 
with more nature-based engineering approaches, which, you might 
understand, maybe makes even more complicated, in a sense, 
reaching an understanding of multi-purpose benefits.
    But there is definitely a science element to this, and I 
think the science has been maturing significantly in recent 
decades. Terms like ecosystem services has become a very mature 
discipline and practice and is transitioning out of 
universities and into real practice. I will give you just one 
example of this from the private sector, Dow, the company, made 
a commitment several years ago to generate $1 billion of 
natural capital as a part of their normal business operations.
    So, it is not philanthropy, but how to incorporate $1 
billion of natural capital investment in nature to provide 
benefits to the company, they developed a specific tool in 
partnership with others that would allow them to do the 
accounting, if you will, of those benefits. So we are working 
with the private sector and with finance institutions to come 
to an understanding of how they are developing the business 
case for themselves for such investment, and how we might be 
able to draw from that understanding in our own practice.
    I would be happy to work with our leadership within the 
Corps to follow-up with you about this topic. It is a very 
important one. There is a science element, and clearly a policy 
element to it.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. I am going to go ahead. I want 
to make sure to run this in a way that enables everybody to 
vote. We have a couple votes going on, and I want to look out 
for Senator Wicker, when he is able to join us. He is probably 
trying to get here. He wanted to question you, in particular.
    I am going to ask you, if you would, just remain at the 
table, and I am going to ask our next panel to come and quietly 
assume your seats, please, if they would do so at this time, 
please. Thank you. If we could put their name plates where they 
belong, thank you.
    We want to welcome our second panel. We have four unique 
voices in water infrastructure space with us today, two of whom 
formerly served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We welcome 
Dr. Mr. Galloway. Dr. Galloway, it is great to see you.
    Dr. Galloway has recently retired from the University of 
Maryland. It is good to have a Terrapin in the house. Prior to 
his position in Maryland, I am told that Dr. Galloway served as 
Brigadier General in the U.S. Army and was an engineering 
leader in the Army Corps of Engineers. We thank you for all 
those years.
    Dr. Galloway has been a leading voice in addressing climate 
change and natural infrastructure as part of the Corps 
engineering objectives and is widely respected for helping move 
water infrastructure standards into the 21st century.
    Next, we are going to have Mr. Chett--I am going to get 
this right. Your name is spelled C-H-I-A-S-S-O-N, and 
phonetically, I am told it is pronounced ``shay-son.'' Is that 
correct? That can't be correct.
    Mr. Chiasson. ``Shah-son.''
    Senator Carper. Shah?
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Carper. Good. What kind of name is that?
    Mr. Chiasson. It is a French name.
    Senator Carper. OK. The pronunciation is on that last 
syllable, huh? ``Son.'' Shay-son, shah-son. Chiasson.
    Mr. Chiasson. Chiasson, yes sir.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. I learned at an early age, if 
you figure out how people like to pronounce their name, then 
that is the way I pronounce it.
    Chett is no stranger to natural infrastructure, serving on 
the Executive Board of Restore or Retreat, a leading non-profit 
organization focused on preserving and restoring the wetlands 
in Southern Louisiana. He is also the Director of Port, and it 
is pronounced here, ``foo-shawn.'' Is that correct? Good. He 
works as an industry partner in using natural and nature-based 
features in port expansion and maintenance activities.
    We also have Ms. Ufner. Julie Ufner, nice to see you. The 
Executive Director of the National Waterway Council. The 
mission of the National Waterway Conference is to effect common 
sense water policies and programs supporting public safety, 
competitive economy, National security, environmental quality, 
and energy conservation. It is great to see you.
    Finally, we have Mr. Rick Johnson from the Sacramento Area 
Flood Control Agency, where he has served as Executive Director 
since February 2011. Before that, Mr. Johnson spent more than 
40 years in Federal service with the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for your 
extraordinary service.
    Mr. Johnson has spent his career on water resource and 
flood damage reduction projects. I am sure he will have a 
unique perspective on Engineering with Nature objectives.
    With all that in mind, let's welcome our first witness and 
recognize him, and that is Dr. Galloway.

 STATEMENT OF GERRY GALLOWAY, PH.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR, GLENN 
   L. MARTIN INSTITUTE, PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, CIVIL, AND 
       ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

    Mr. Galloway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
to be here today.
    I have been working in this business for about 60 years, 
both building nature-based structures and other structures 
within the Corps of Engineers and overseeing the construction 
and the use of these. I would like to make four points today 
about the use of these natural and nature-based features, or I 
will call it natural infrastructure.
    Point one: use of natural infrastructure has been and 
continues to be an important part of the development and 
sustainable use of our Nation's water resources. These features 
work. They physically and financially benefit society. Natural 
infrastructure should be seen as a significant component of the 
Nation's water infrastructure portfolio.
    Much can be learned from projects underway in this Country 
and abroad, as you heard from Dr. Bridges, where nations facing 
extremely difficult water resource challenges have already 
begun to increase their use of natural infrastructure in their 
projects. The largest projects are taking place in China, the 
Netherlands, and other countries.
    Chinese mega-cities are using natural systems to capture 
stormwater, prevent flooding, store water for repurposing, 
reduce pollution, and reduce the impacts of the urban heat 
island, something that is coming up under climate change. Their 
target is to capture 70 percent of the stormwater that falls on 
these cities, and they label these cities ``sponge cities.''
    U.S. parallels, which are certainly not at the China scale, 
have been initiated in several cities including Philadelphia, 
Chicago, and New York under the rubric of low impact 
development using green roofs, bioswales, local flood storage, 
parks, and other natural infrastructure. Given the significant 
impact of urban flooding on low-income and minority 
neighborhoods in U.S. cities and in smaller rural communities, 
such efforts are a great step forward in moving toward better 
work in this area and providing fertile ground for increased 
EPA and Corps of Engineers cooperative efforts. What would 
Houston have been like if 70 percent of the Harvey stormwater 
had been captured by natural systems?
    Before I close this point, I should also like to note that 
while natural infrastructure is certainly critical and can play 
a major role in water resource development, grey 
infrastructure, the other side, which has so effectively 
supported the construction the dams, levees, and navigation 
systems, remains an indispensable part of our approach to 
supporting national economic development and protecting our 
citizens from natural disasters.
    My second point is, over the last half-century, as seen in 
the legislation that has come out of this particular Capitol 
Hill, inclusion of environmental approaches to water resource 
development has been an important part of this national policy. 
Over the years, Congress has been wishy-washy in its full 
endorsement of the environment, to be honest. I would hope that 
today, congressional consideration of the environment and its 
contribution to development are real and can be emphasized in 
every opportunity.
    Point three: barriers have existed and continue to exist 
that prevent the full employment of natural infrastructure and 
development of water resources. I will cite five of many.
    First of all, the field is skeptical that Washington, and 
that is the Administration, it is especially OMB, and Congress 
is behind inclusion of natural systems in water resource 
development. The overwhelming focus on economic benefits versus 
total benefits, which includes environment and social features, 
seems to drive the train.
    Second, the process and procedures used to justify water 
resource projects in general and environmental and social 
benefits in particular are overly complex and unwieldy, and as 
a result, projects can be unnecessarily delayed or maybe never 
even get started. We wind up in a lot of paperwork.
    In many cases, efforts to broaden the benefit base for 
projects to include environmental and social benefits are 
hampered by the lack of local interest in carrying these out, 
often because that would increase the cost share on something 
that is seen as uneconomic or tangential.
    Much of the work of water resource development is conducted 
with inefficient and ineffective stovepipes that exist within 
agencies, committees of Congress, and academic disciplines.
    Last, congressional instructions or restrictions on the use 
of natural and beneficial functions and their keeping track of 
what they are in terms of benefits and costs has caused 
problems for the Corps of Engineers and not permitted them to 
be as innovative as they could. The work in WRDA 2020 to open 
this up will certainly make a big difference.
    Point four: Congress can act to support the inclusion of 
natural and beneficial functions developed by the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and we would hope that would take place, that there 
are things you can do in your appropriations and authorizations 
that send the message.
    I thank you for the opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Galloway follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. We are delighted to have you. Thanks again 
for joining us.
    Now, our next witness, Mr. Chiasson, we have been joined by 
again. Senator Capito is now going to preside, and I will be 
back as quickly as I can. Thank you.

   STATEMENT OF CHETT CHIASSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER 
                   LAFOURCHE PORT COMMISSION

    Mr. Chiasson. Good morning, Chairman Carper and Ranking 
Member Capito and members of the committee. My name is Chett 
Chiasson. I am the Executive Director of the Greater Lafourche 
Port Commission, otherwise known as Port Fourchon. I also serve 
on Governor John Bel Edwards' Advisory Commission for Coastal 
Activities, the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration 
Authority Finance Corporation, and the Executive Board of 
Restore or Retreat, as you said earlier, which is a regional 
non-profit coastal restoration advocacy group.
    First, I would like to commend the committee for holding 
this hearing on this subject matter. Whenever I am speaking 
about Port Fourchon, I never fail to discuss our coastal 
restoration efforts in South Louisiana and its extreme 
importance to our professional and personal lives, but this is 
the first hearing I am aware of with the primary focus of 
nature-based infrastructure across all mission lines of the 
Corps of Engineers. Again, I commend you.
    I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of my 
fellow panelists on this issue for the work they have done. 
With great thanks to this committee for passing WRDA 2020, our 
Port Fourchon Bell Pass Channel deepening project was 
authorized last year in that legislation. This project will, of 
course, provide our tenants with additional draft to 
accommodate their vessels, but equally important, 100 percent 
of the dredged material will be beneficially reused for marsh 
creation. In total, this one project will create approximately 
948 acres of new marsh. This is but one project in which we are 
involved.
    The integration of coastal restoration into Corps and non-
Corps projects is a matter of necessity where I live. In 
preparing for this hearing, I reached out to several of my 
professional colleagues from my local area who regularly 
interact with the Corps to get their perspective, some of which 
I have included in my written testimony.
    It occurred to me that while we all have separate missions 
in our respective organizations, there are a number of common 
threads connecting all of us in the coastal areas of South 
Louisiana, and a major one is the Corps of Engineers. The Corps 
and other Federal and State agencies are a constant presence in 
our State, our economy, our property, and our very lives depend 
upon the Corps carrying out its various missions with the 
highest level of excellence. For the most part, I believe the 
Corps achieves that level of excellence. But what is an issue 
is that at time, Corps policy and action can be cumbersome, 
inflexible, and often slow to adapt to the advancements of 
today, which are the foundation for tomorrow.
    For example, for the Port's aforementioned deepening 
project, the Corps has been reluctant to consider Federal 
participation in the ecosystem restoration utilization 
beneficial use under the National Economic Development, or NED, 
plan due to an outdated NED policy and its application. Rather, 
at least at this point, we will need to cobble together Corps 
navigation and environmental restoration authorities to achieve 
our goals, and to date, this has not yet been resolved.
    Although the Corps has made great strides over the years on 
ecosystem restoration as my written testimony discusses, fully 
utilizing dredged material for beneficial use and rebuilding 
Louisiana's coastal areas has been the exception and not the 
rule. In terms of Corps missions, they span navigation, flood 
control, and environmental restoration, to name a few.
    Also, in terms of laws that this committee has passed, such 
as flood control acts, various water acts, Clean Water Act, 
Endangered Species Act, just to name a few. These laws all have 
different goals and varying mandates and corresponding 
implementation by the Corps and other Federal agencies, but the 
everyday lives of Americans aren't bifurcated like that. We are 
people making a living, raising a family, enjoying free time, 
whatever our calling is in life.
    So, the Corps, and this gets the hard amount of message 
today, the Corps and every other government agency, for that 
matter, must be able to overcome the inevitable silos within 
its organization, based on its various statutory mandates and 
implemented policies and must be able to utilize and manage all 
of its assets over multiple disciplines with flexibility, 
ingenuity, and timeliness, whether it is in immediate response 
to a hurricane or flood even or whether it is in planning a 50-
year flood damage reduction project, or a large-scale multi-
year coastal restoration project with beneficial use disposal 
as a component of a navigation project.
    The final point I will make is that the vast majority of 
non-Federal sponsors involved with any Corps project are some 
sort of governmental organization. We, too, are under statutory 
mandates and operate on our own set of policies to which we 
must adhere, and we, too, are ever mindful of the need to spend 
our public dollars wisely and efficiently.
    Being at the local government level, I suspect we are able 
to, at times, think, adapt, and act quicker that a Federal 
agency. But I do think that it should be an overarching goal of 
the Corps and committees in Congress like yours with 
jurisdiction over these matters to continuously seek 
flexibility, efficiency, and innovation in administering these 
laws. Listen to and work more creatively with the local 
sponsors, the NGO's, and the businesses involved in those 
projects, because while we all have a common goal in mind, we 
all have different perspectives, skill sets, and mandates.
    Again, members of the committee, thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Chiasson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito.
    [Presiding] Thank you.
    We now have Ms. Julie Ufner, the Executive Director for the 
National Waterways Conference. The mission of the National 
Waterways Conference is to effect common sense water policies 
in programs supporting public safety, a competitive economy, 
national security, environmental quality, and energy 
conservation. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF JULIE UFNER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL WATERWAYS 
                           CONFERENCE

    Ms. Ufner. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carper, 
Ranking Member Capito, and members of the committee. I am 
honored to be here today to talk about the role of natural and 
nature-based features in water resource projects.
    My name is Julie Ufner. I am President and CEO of the 
National Waterways Conference. We represent the full spectrum 
of water resource stakeholders, many of which who are non-
Federal partners with the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 
Projects and are responsible for significant financial 
commitments for the construction and maintenance of the 
projects. We do appreciate the committee holding this hearing 
today, and we are really happy to be here with these other 
witnesses.
    Prior to this hearing, we reached out to our members to ask 
for their input on natural and nature-based features, and we 
got some varied responses. While there is much to be sorted out 
in terms of effectiveness, there is consensus among our members 
that nature-based features should be part of the larger water 
infrastructure toolbox.
    Nature-based features are a good idea when it is 
appropriate. It fits into the existing overarching design, and 
there is consensus with the non-Federal sponsors, but it is not 
going to work under all circumstances. Take, for example, two 
separate projects in Orange County, California. One project 
used natural designs to successfully redirect flows from a 
waterway, and the County saved close to $80,000. Another 
project had higher installation costs, and the engineers are 
unsure whether the project will work long-term.
    Additionally, some of our members indicated they are often 
challenged by existing or even competing Federal agency 
regulations when trying to include nature-based features. A 
good example of this is the Corps' levee vegetation removal 
policy under Public Law 8499. Under this policy, all 
vegetation, except grass, is to be removed from levees, which 
would make nature-based features infeasible. If levees are not 
in compliance with this policy, they would be ineligible for 
Federal disaster assistance.
    Moreover, our urban members note that there are many 
constraints that may limit or prevent nature-based features 
from being used in densely populated areas due to available 
land, high real estate, as well as rights of ways issues. 
Furthermore, there is limited data on life cycle costs. When 
the data is available, there are indications that the costs 
will vary tremendously on the location and nature and extent of 
the problem being addressed, let alone whether it is affordable 
for the local sponsor.
    But we know from experience that where infrastructure is in 
place, whether it be grey, green, or a combination of both, 
communities tend to experience a lesser degree of physical harm 
and economic damage during both coastal and inland storm 
events. When used effectively, nature-based solutions can be a 
valuable component of an overall, larger project as long as the 
feature fits with the project and there is buy-in by the local 
sponsor.
    In conclusion, before good ideas are required, we must be 
sure that those approaches work and that the Federal taxpayer 
and the non-Federal sponsor can bear the cost. In response to 
Congress's directive for the Corps to evaluate nature-based 
features in the last three WRDA bills, we would encourage a 
meaningful review of these provisions, including how they are 
working at the agency.
    Any solutions must be continued to be built upon the 
experiences that are on the front line. Those that are on the 
ground, including the flood control districts, levee boards, 
emergency managers, and port authorities, to name a few. Not 
only will such an approach save the taxpayers money, but it 
will also mitigate the difficult decisions later on how to 
address flooding and whether and where to rebuild. The 
conference stands ready to assist you in this effort.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am 
happy to take any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ufner follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Our final witness is Mr. Rick Johnson from the Sacramento 
Area Flood Control Agency, where he has served as the Executive 
Director since February 2011. Before that, Mr. Johnson spent 
more than 30 years in Federal service with the U.S. Corps of 
Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
    Mr. Johnson has spent his career on water resource and 
flood damage reduction projects, and I am sure he will have a 
unique perspective on Engineering with Nature objectives. Thank 
you, and welcome.

STATEMENT OF RICK JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO AREA 
                      FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 
testify today. I did want to take an opportunity to recognize 
our new Senator from California, Senator Padilla, who is on the 
committee, and thank him for his support.
    As you mentioned, my name is Rick Johnson, with the 
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, or SAFCA.
    Sacramento is one of the most at-risk cities in the Country 
for riverine flooding with more than $70 billion in damageable 
property and over a half million people at risk. The city sits 
at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. The 
Yolo Bypass, immediately west of Sacramento, carries about 85 
percent of flows during large flood events.
    Water is also conveyed to the Sacramento Bypass through the 
Sacramento Weir. Our flood issues have been recognized by 
leaders like you in our congressional committees, and we have 
an active construction program run by the Corps of Engineers to 
rebuild our system.
    I was asked to discuss one of our projects specifically 
ongoing in the Sacramento Bypass. The projects on the American 
River were designed to significantly increase the carrying 
capacity of the river, thus reducing the flood threat to 
Sacramento. However, this has created a problem where the 
American River joins the Sacramento River. Downstream of that 
juncture, the river cannot adequately handle additional flow.
    Likewise, the Sacramento Weir and Bypass, which empties 
into the Yolo Bypass, do not have adequate capacity either. 
Fortunately, the land on the north side of the Sacramento 
Bypass is not urbanized, and that gave us an opportunity to 
increase the flow-carrying capacity by setting back the levees. 
As part of the project, we were also able to include a fish 
passage to allow species such as salmon and steelhead, who have 
historically been trapped behind the old Sacramento Weir, to 
move back into the Sacramento River. The widened floodplain 
will also allow other habitats to be established.
    In cases such as urban areas like ours, there may not 
always be opportunities for solely nature-based solutions. 
However, there are opportunities to incorporate nature-based 
components into structural solutions.
    For example, we have situations on the American River where 
the river has eroded its banks and threatened the levee. 
Normally, we would like to set the levees back from the main 
channel to allow the river to move more naturally. However, 
since the land adjacent to the levees has already been 
urbanized, it made a set-back levee solution cost-prohibitive 
and too disruptive to the community.
    A traditional structural solution would be to harden the 
levee and its banks with a rock barrier called revetment. 
However, in this case, we were able to come up with a nature-
based component that was added to the structural solution. A 
planting berm was constructed on top of the revetment and 
planted with vegetation. This solution still provided the 
structural hardening of the levees, but also restored and even 
enhanced the shaded riverine habitat in this section of the 
river.
    I also wanted to provide an example of how current policies 
can have a limiting effect on implementing nature-based 
components.
    The Yolo Bypass was originally constructed for flood 
control only, but has evolved over the decades into an area 
with multiple uses, including providing critical habitat. 
Improving the Yolo Bypass is urgently needed, but this time, we 
need to study it through a multi-purpose lens. The Corps did a 
study previously, but their process and policies made it 
impossible to fully examine all the uses and benefits the 
Bypass could offer, including critical habitat.
    I provide more specifics in my written statement, but I 
will simply highlight an administrative policy by the Corps 
that should be revisited in the future.
    While the real estate interest in land for flood control 
purposes were purchased with easements for the Yolo Bypass, the 
agency policy is that if we want to use these same lands to 
provide environmental benefits, we would have to acquire them 
through fee title, which made it very cost-prohibitive. 
Policies and practices such as these have made it difficult to 
incorporate more nature-based solutions and components into 
projects.
    The Yolo Bypass Comprehensive Study, authorized by Congress 
in Section 209 of WRDA 2020, directs the Corps to perform a 
comprehensive study of the Yolo Bypass with a multi-purpose 
perspective. It is also an opportunity to re-think the types of 
benefits that can be used to justify multi-purpose projects.
    We look forward to working with our partners at the Corps 
on this study.
    In conclusion, I wanted to thank you for having me here 
today and for this opportunity to speak, and also for passing 
WRDA 2020, and our Section 209. I did want to recognize the 
professionalism of your respective staffs and all their help in 
getting ready. Thank you, and I will be willing to take any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I believe we have Senator Wicker on WebEx to question. Are 
you on, Senator Wicker?
    Senator Wicker. You sure do. Can you hear me, Madam Chair?
    Senator Capito. We can. Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Thank you so much. Three hearings in 
one morning at the same time, we have to do a delicate dance, 
so I do appreciate the committee accommodating me.
    Dr. Bridges, I want to ask about the Bonnet Carre Spillway. 
It was open for months in 2019, and Mississippi's coastal 
resources were devastated by the flood of freshwater coming 
into the saltwater Mississippi Sound. Businesses and 
livelihoods were negatively affected across the Mississippi 
coast.
    In response, Congress authorized a study of the lower 
Mississippi River in last year's WRDA. This study would provide 
scientific basis to identify projects to reduce the reliance on 
the one solution of Bonnet Carre and look at a multiple of 
opportunities. It is likely that a complex system like the 
lower Mississippi River could use both nature-based and 
traditional features for flood control.
    How could ERDEC contribute to this study and help the Army 
Corps provide better flood control for a complex water resource 
project like this and avert setting all of the floodwater in 
one direction and devastating an entire economy?
    Mr. Bridges. Thank you for your question, Senator. One of 
the main areas of activity of the Engineering with Nature 
Initiative is to work collaboratively with our project teams 
across the floor, at districts and division offices to envision 
and to bring ideas and innovation and to implement these ideas.
    I think there are opportunities, of course. My 
understanding of the project that you mentioned, the 
implementation guidance is being prepared by headquarters, and 
ERDEC has a long tradition of collaborating with our 
Mississippi Valley division and our New Orleans district. I 
have some confidence that we will do so in regard to this 
project, as well.
    As you pointed out, our river infrastructure systems are 
challenged, and they are being challenged now in ways that they 
have not been in the past. In a colloquial sense, we can say 
that the systems are really pressurized, and solutions to those 
going forward, in the long-term, do call for an all of the 
above approach. As you noted, nature-based approaches, which we 
may call in some cases within the Corps levee setbacks, are 
really restoring floodplain back to rivers to kind of de-
pressurize, to spread out the water.
    One mechanism for doing that, the spillways that you 
mentioned, including Bonnet Carre and others can be used in a 
complementary fashion to those kinds of approaches. One of the 
opportunities that nature-based approaches provide in this 
context is the opportunity for multiple purposes to be gained 
from those elements of the solution, where habitat and access 
for hunting and fishing and other kind of social purposes can 
be incorporated and be providing benefits for communities year-
round in addition to those times during high water when that 
space is being utilized for what we might call flood storage.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Let me just interject here, and you can 
supplement the answer on the record.
    Time is marching on, and this is going to take some time. 
It just seems to me that there has to be a way that we can 
spread the freshwater and not devastate an economy.
    On the nature-based features, one example of that would be 
Ship Island and Cat Island, and that was a result of 
collaboration between ERDEC, the National Park Service, and my 
home State of Mississippi. What scientific and technical 
capabilities did your shop at ERDEC provide to facilitate this?
    Mr. Bridges. The Engineering Research and Development 
Center has been collaborating and supporting our Mobile 
District in the network of projects that you mentioned, a part 
of MISSIP, including Cat and Ship Island, for more than 10 
years, a whole variety of ways, including hydrodynamic modeling 
instead of transport modeling and monitoring of sea grasses and 
sturgeon and sediment placement methods for those frustration 
projects. It is almost innumerable ways in which we have been 
working with Mobile District and those projects.
    Mississippi can be quite proud, I believe. That network of 
projects along the coast of Mississippi is perhaps one of the 
most mature examples of nature-based solutions in action of 
anywhere in the Country. Mobile District is one of our 
Engineering with Nature Proving Grounds, and we are looking 
forward to even more support to them in the future to deliver 
solutions of that type.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Dr. Bridges, and thanks to the 
committee for, again, indulging me and my time constraints.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
    Dr. Bridges, you can take your leave. We appreciate your 
testimony, and thank you. I know you have been very, very 
resourceful for us. Thank you.
    I am going to start questioning. Ms. Ufner, I want to talk 
about partnerships between the Corps and non-Federal sponsors. 
Obviously, that was the crux of your testimony. I think I heard 
that you and maybe Mr. Johnson had some concerns about 
different agencies playing into these projects, and is the 
right hand talking to the left hand.
    Can you expound on that a little bit and give me an example 
of other agencies that are working with the core and the non--
--
    Federal sponsors to get these kinds of projects off the 
ground?
    Ms. Ufner. Thank you, Senator, for your question. I am 
happy to respond. I may defer to Mr. Johnson for more specific 
examples.
    At least, from our members, from what we understand, we do 
hear of some challenges with the Army Corps of Engineers 
working with other Federal agencies, specifically in levee 
safety, per se, with FEMA. We highlighted an example with 
Public Law 8499 earlier, but there are other examples on how 
does flood risk management fit in with the overall issues 
within levee safety.
    Our point has always been that it is our non-Federal 
sponsors who are on the ground paying for these projects, and 
they are in touch with the local communities. They know what is 
best for the program, so we would really encourage Federal 
agencies to work with in that confine.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Johnson, did you want to make a comment 
on that?
    Mr. Johnson. I just might add one. In California, 
especially, we are very cognizant of impacts on the habitat. So 
when sometimes some of the Corps directives, they want us to 
remove some of the vegetation that are on or near the levees, 
that has created some issues with some of the other Federal 
agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. So those can complicate projects when that 
are odds on purposes at a Federal level.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Chiasson, I do you have any experience 
with conflicting Federal agencies in working on the Corps 
projects, with your project?
    Mr. Chiasson. I could talk for 3 hours about that, but what 
I can tell you is yes, there are. What happens, a lot of times, 
especially when you are trying to get a permit to do some work 
in a coastal area, there is conflicting, and we talked about 
silos, everybody has their own mission, and a lot of times, all 
those missions conflict.
    So it is hard as a local sponsor to try to tap dance around 
all of those different, instead of looking at what the main 
mission of the project is and where we are trying to go, and 
trying to mold that together to make something that is actually 
doable, because it is both environmentally and economically 
beneficial.
    Senator Capito. Does your port primarily serve as a land 
base for offshore oil and gas support service companies? Is 
that the main function?
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes, it does. We like to call it offshore 
energy these days.
    Senator Capito. That is good. This is an interesting 
question, I think, for this, because the Biden Administration's 
Fiscal Year 2020 budget request includes language stating that 
one of the objectives considered in developing the request was 
``not funding work that directly subsidizes fossil fuels, 
including work that lowers the cost of production, lowers the 
cost of consumption, or raises the revenues retained by 
producers of fossil fuels.''
    Would that cause you a problem that you are going to be, 
because of the function that your port is there for, its main 
function, servicing the oil industry? You are going to get 
knocked down in your ability to get help?
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes, it would, and it would also hinder our 
ability to look at offshore wind and other sources of energy 
offshore. As an offshore oil and gas services port currently, 
it is our customers, it is the technology that exists, and 
offshore oil and gas, that actually are helping to create the 
offshore wind farms in the northeast. That type of ruling, or 
that regulation, would hinder us from even embarking on further 
capabilities to serve as the offshore wind market, and we are 
going to continue to try to pursue that.
    Senator Capito. Right. I might add, too, if the substance 
of the hearing is nature-based and natural infrastructure. If 
you are hemmed up from being able to access the expertise and 
the funding that goes along with that, as a goal of being more 
environmentally friendly or compatible, you are really cross 
purposes, I think, from what this regulation would say.
    Mr. Chiasson. That is correct.
    Senator Capito. OK. I am waiting for the Chairman to take 
his seat so I can go vote.
    I am going to ask Ms. Ufner again, when putting projects 
together, and I know a lot of funding comes from non-Federal 
partners, how important is the research and development that 
Dr. Bridges talked about, and how do you coordinate that with 
your non-Federal partners, with your membership?
    Ms. Ufner. Thank you for that question, Senator. That is a 
difficult question to answer, because what we have found from 
talking with our members is that natural-based features, the 
challenges differ across the Nation. The challenge is, this has 
been around for years, nature-based features, and we are still 
learning a lot about them.
    One of the examples that we highlighted in the testimony on 
Orange County, California, they had two very similar projects, 
one worked, one did not. What will work in, say, California, 
with Mr. Johnson, may not work in the Gulf Coast, and that is 
still research that is happening.
    It is hopefully through these projects as we move forward 
that we will be able to glean more details and share them with 
each other, because it is all about collaboration and becoming 
a win-win for us all in the end.
    Senator Capito. Yes, and I would imagine Dr. Bridges talked 
about the atlas that is being created. I am sure that would be 
very helpful to projects all across the Country.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will go make my vote.
    Senator Carper.
    [Presiding] Great. Thanks so much for chairing. I want to 
come back to, if I can, to Dr. Galloway, and ask a couple 
questions, and then we will wrap it up.
    Dr. Galloway, you are well-known as an expert in disaster 
resilience and water resources policy. Did you know that? 
Working as a Governor-appointed official in not one, but two 
States, Louisiana and Maryland. If you ever talk to the 
Governor down there, give him our best, John Bel Edwards. Give 
him our best.
    You have been working with those folks in two States to 
address long-term strategies for sustainable infrastructure in 
coastal conservation. You have also served, I am told, on 
numerous boards and commissions across the globe and have 
extensive experience with the Corps as a former District 
Commander and Appointee on the Mississippi River Commission. 
You have seen these challenges, I think, from all angles.
    Here is the question. In your opinion, what are the biggest 
barriers or challenges to incorporating nature-based design 
concepts into the Corps' Civil Works Program?
    Mr. Galloway. I think the biggest single problem is a 
failure for those that are in the process of approving and 
reviewing to recognize two things: one, that not all benefits 
can be quantified in terms of dollars. You can come up with 
qualitative and quantitative approaches that explain what is 
happening, but when you are building something that, for 
example, a nature-based system that provides relief from heat 
or reduces pollution, and yet the major project itself may be 
flood control or something else, people discount that. Don't do 
that. Separable item. Come in with another project.
    We have got to take a systems approach that recognizes 
there are multiple benefits with nature-based approaches, and 
we need to be able to figure out how to incorporate them.
    The second part of that is, we need to figure out a way to 
have agencies work together on projects where they are not at 
cross-purposes, but their authorizations and their interests 
are slightly different, but we need to pull them together. You 
can take the case of Hampton Roads in Virginia, where we are 
suffering with sea level rise, and they are trying their best 
to do something there. You have multiple agencies, each with a 
stovepipe giving them funds and authorities.
    How do you mix those? How do you blend those? Who is trying 
to put all those things together? The locals certainly have a 
challenge in bringing these people to the table. Even once they 
get to the table and agree, how do you get them to get the 
authorities from Washington to move ahead with a coordinated 
approach to dealing with this, dealing with the multiple 
permits and all the things you have heard from both Port 
Fourchon and from SAFCA? It is a challenge.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that answer; it was good. 
Very good.
    Mr. Chiasson, as a Louisiana port director, you have had a 
front row seat to seeing the impacts of climate change. You are 
also on the, I am told you are on the Executive Committee for 
Restore or Retreat, a non-profit organization that addresses 
Louisiana's land loss by advocating for large-scale coastal 
restoration projects.
    Since Hurricane Katrina, the port has constructed a number 
of new facilities and created hundreds of acres of wetlands, 
integrating both traditional engineering concepts and nature-
based features using a variety of different funding sources and 
programs. In your opinion, does the Corps of Engineers Civil 
Works process allow for integration of nature-based features 
into projects? The second part of that question would be, how 
could it be improved?
    Mr. Chiasson. Thank you. I can give you an example of what 
we are dealing with from what in WRDA 2020 was just passed, and 
we were authorized to go 30-foot draft, but we are still in the 
environmental process, finalizing that. You have to look at it 
from the Corps NED policy, and that is the National Economic 
Development plan.
    What that looks at is least costly and environmentally 
acceptable alternative. What was asked of us is to investigate 
and look at the NED plan and we wanted to have the NED to be 
the offshore disposal site, which, one, is just not smart in 
South Louisiana because we need every speck of sand we can to 
rebuild our coasts. Like we said, we want to use 100 percent 
beneficial use.
    Two, we don't have an offshore disposal site actually 
activated, so there is no place for us to actually put it. That 
is still something that we are trying to deal with.
    What we need to look at is not staying in our stovepipes, 
or not keeping silos there of where these funding sources are 
for us to be able to participate with these navigation 
projects, but bring in the environmental portion of those and 
utilizing beneficial use of dredged material. It is critically 
important for us in South Louisiana and across the coast to do 
that.
    At this point, where we are, a typical cost-share is 75 
percent Federal, 25 percent local sponsor. Right now, where we 
are because of the NED portion, it is actually 51 percent 
local, and 49 percent Federal. We need to change that.
    Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
    I want to come back real quickly to you, Dr. Galloway, if I 
could, just a quick follow-up. What changes are needed to the 
Corps' cost-benefit methodology to enable the Corps non-Federal 
project sponsors and the public to better evaluate and compare 
nature-based infrastructure to other alternatives?
    Mr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me, 
because I have been around so long, 60 years.
    Senator Carper. That is not long around here.
    Mr. Galloway. Yes, sir. We know how to do these things. 
There are experts within the Corps and within the academic 
community that have been working with how you evaluate these 
issues. The issues come up, like Mr. Chanson just said, is the 
issue, if there is a focus, if the objective is strong on NED, 
economics, you tend to disregard the other.
    I think we can find the methodologies, but what we need, in 
my view, is for the Congress to ask and say, we want a response 
in terms of the evaluations that balances all of these.
    You go back to the 1980's when Tug Fork was being built as 
a project in West Virginia, and it was lectured to in the 
Senate that this benefit-cost is supposed to be the sum of all 
the benefits, the sum of all the costs, and we need to blend 
and be prepared to deal with both quantitative and qualitative 
benefits and costs in the same document. This can be done. 
There are people that are ready to do it, but it takes a will 
to do that.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. I am going to stop picking on 
you now, and we will find Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, in your 
opinion, are there specific Corps policies and procedures that 
disincentivize the inclusion of natural and nature-based 
infrastructure? If so, what are some of those policies and 
procedures?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, sir. I referred briefly 
to one in my oral testimony. Let me expound a little bit on it 
because it was a recent experience.
    In the Yolo Bypass, when the Corps built it for flood 
control, they purchased 59,000 acres, they purchased flood 
easements on it. It is primarily farmers who grow rice, and 
then during the flood season, their lands are fallow.
    One of the projects we wanted to approach the Corps on is 
to incorporate a nature-based solution during those fallow 
periods. Salmon and steelhead, they get into the bypass, grow 
eight to ten times larger than in the main stem. So what we 
wanted to do was to work out a process where the farmers on 
their lands, when their fields are fallowed, would grow salmon 
and steelhead.
    We were told that if we did that, Corps policy would 
require us to purchase all the lands in fee title because it 
was an environmental restoration component. So while it is OK 
for our primary purpose for flood control to have easements, if 
we wanted to add the secondary benefit on the land that we 
already have rights to, we would have to go purchase it in fee 
title.
    That alone, it basically made it so we couldn't move 
forward with that particular possibility of adding a nature-
based solution to a period of time during the flood season 
where we weren't getting anything out of the land there.
    Senator Carper. OK. Thank you for that response.
    Ms. Ufner, I have one quick question for you. You 
mentioned, Mr. Johnson mentioned agriculture. There is a press 
conference going on right now on legislation on the floor on 
how can we enable and better equip farmers so that they can be 
fighting on the right side of climate change and still make 
money. So I am looking forward to that for the ag community.
    But before I run off to do that, a question, if I could, 
for Ms. Ufner, please. Has the navigation community recognized 
benefits derived from the beneficial use of dredged materials 
for the creation of marsh buffers and other landforms that 
reduce the overall cost of traditional dredging and disposal? 
If so, how, and what are the barriers to expand this practice, 
please?
    Ms. Ufner. Thank you, Senator. That is why I appreciate 
that you have the port here to also talk about the benefits of 
the dredge fill.
    We do have two examples within our testimony, both that 
feature on Louisiana, but on the beneficial use of dredge, and 
we do appreciate Congress moving forward and recognizing the 
beneficial use. Having said that, there are still some 
challenges. The costs can be very prohibitive.
    One of the examples we have from Louisiana that they were 
estimated $20 million to move the dredged material 12 miles, 
and the port would not have been able to do it except for the 
State of Louisiana stepping in. So if we can address those 
overall costs of what it costs and allow people or entities to 
move forward with projects when you have a willing sponsor, 
that is all that we can ask for. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. In closing, let's give a little 
bit of context here. This is the last day we are going to be in 
session until after the Fourth of July, and there is a lot we 
are trying to get done in committees and on the floor. Even 
over at the White House right now, there are meetings just 
beginning on the bipartisan infrastructure package that we 
worked on in this committee, and I think made a good 
contribution to a couple of them.
    But all that is going on literally while we are here, so I 
thank you for bearing with us as we move through our agenda. I 
want to thank you for your time and I want to thank you for 
what you do with your lives, and for all of us. Thank you for 
making us smarter.
    My dad used to say, my sister and me, when we were little 
kids, have you taken your smart pills today? Maybe your parents 
did something like that to you, but you have given us a couple 
good smart pills here. We are grateful for that.
    The Corps and the important work it does protects us from 
floods, and also it helps shippers navigate our waterways 
safely so that we can adapt to the realities that we are 
seeing, the climate crisis. We heard some gripping comments 
from our Senator Kelly from Arizona about what they are facing 
there, and what we have talked about in Louisiana, about losing 
a football field of land every 100 minutes is pretty hard to 
imagine.
    Incorporating natural infrastructure into its future 
planning is a cost-effective, efficient way that we can shield 
communities from the impacts of future storms and natural 
disasters. It is my hope that today's hearing has shed some 
light on that urgent need and will help foster further action.
    For some final housekeeping, I want to ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the record a number of reports and 
articles relating to the Corps' use of natural infrastructure 
and ongoing research by the Corps and non-Federal stakeholders 
about nature-based initiative. These documents stress how 
natural infrastructure can be used as a tool to address the 
impacts of climate change, including increased severe weather 
events and sea level rise. Hearing no objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Additionally, Senators will be allowed to 
submit questions for the record through the close of business 
on July the 12th. We are going to compile those questions and 
send them on to each of you. We would just ask that you reply 
to us by July 13th. I was just kidding on that, no. By July 
22d. I wanted to make sure you are listening, so July 22d, if 
you could have your responses back by then, that would be 
great.
    With that, again, one last time, thank you. Happy Fourth of 
July. God bless you all. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                           [all]