[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]