[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 169 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7156-S7158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1810. A bill to authorize improvements to flood damage reduction
facilities adjacent to the American and Sacramento Rivers near
Sacramento, California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Natomas
Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011.
This legislation will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area,
safeguarding many thousands of homes and businesses.
There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento, a city that
is perpetually cited as one of our Nation's most at-risk for severe
flooding.
But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. Natomas,
which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top
priority for Sacramento flood control.
More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or
moderate risk of flooding.
The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with over 10 feet
of water should a levee break.
In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet.
The risk is clear. Estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers put the
risk of levee failure at 1 in 3. Damages from a single flood could top
$7 billion.
Recognizing the need to upgrade the levees in Natomas, the Corps of
Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified
$1.1 billion in essential levee improvements.
According to the report, the principal levee modifications include
the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about
34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of
seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99.
In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal
habitat, 200 acres of Marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat
to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.
The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden
will be shared. The Chief's Report recommends that the costs of the
improvements be split between the federal government and state and
local stakeholders.
The report recommends roughly a 65 percent federal share and a 35
percent state and local share.
The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California
Department of Water Resources have taken the cost-share agreement to
heart and are outpacing the Corps of Engineers. They have begun their
work on the project even before the federal work has been authorized.
SAFCA and California have already invested more than $320 million in
the Natomas Basin project and repaired about 18 miles of the basin's 42
miles of levees. By the end of 2012, this amount will increase to $370
million.
I want to take a moment to recognize SAFCA and the people of
Sacramento for their efforts. They have put their money where their
mouth is. This project would not be possible without the significant
leadership and resources they have already committed.
County voters twice approved special tax assessments, in 2007 and
2011, to raise local funds needed to improve the levee system. These
assessments will provide more than $80 million of local funds for flood
control projects. In addition, local interests have provided an
additional $40 million in advance of federal participation for which
credit will be sought, that is a total commitment thus far of $120
million
The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly, 84.5 percent of
voters supported the measure.
Sacramento residents and homeowners understand that this levee
improvement project is critical to the safety and viability of their
community. Even during the worst economic downturns in a generation,
voters stood together, passed the measure and sent a definitive message
to Congress.
I also want to recognize Representative Doris Matsui, author of
companion legislation in the House and a champion on this issue. I have
had the pleasure of working with my good friend from Sacramento on
flood control for nearly a decade, and her commitment and advocacy is
unparalleled.
I want to reinforce the importance of this legislation. If Sacramento
levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International
Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the
primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater.
Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or
restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the
passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day.
Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport,
will be jeopardized.
Flooding in Sacramento is not a question of if, but when.
Recordbreaking storms hit the region in 1951, 1956, 1964, 1986 and
1997.
[[Page S7157]]
During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of
Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations
and millions of dollars in damages.
An even more devastating flood occurred in 1861 when the American
River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland
Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration and the
state capital was temporarily moved to San Francisco.
In January of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study
entitled ``ARkStorm'' that examined the impacts of an atmospheric river
storm event in California. This storm scenario produced rainfall levels
seen once every 500 to 1,000 years.
In this model, the Central Valley would experience 300 miles of
flooding, 20 or more miles wide. Evacuations could involve 1.5 million
residents, with hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and
homes.
There is a statistical possibility that the cataclysmic scenario run
by the U.S.G.S. will occur in our lifetime. The possibility is small,
but it could happen.
So we must be prepared if it does.
The Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one
small step toward achieving that.
This legislation addresses the needs of one of the highest-risk
communities in our Nation.
While this legislation isn't cheap, the cost-share relieves a sizable
share of the Federal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1810
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Natomas Basin Flood
Protection Improvements Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PROJECT MODIFICATION, AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction,
American and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by
section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3662; 113 Stat. 319; 117
Stat. 1839; 121 Stat. 1947), is modified to authorize the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
to construct improvements to flood damage reduction
facilities adjacent to the American and Sacramento Rivers in
the vicinity of Sacramento, California, substantially in
accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers entitled
``American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas
Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California'', and
dated December 30, 2010, at an estimated total cost of
$1,389,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$921,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$468,300,000.
(b) Credit for Non-Federal Work.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for expenses and in-kind contributions incurred by the
non-Federal interest in carrying out a project described in
subsection (a) for planning, design, and construction of the
project and acquisition of any land, easement, right-of-way,
relocation, and dredged material disposal area for the
project.
(2) Application of credit.--The credit under paragraph (1)
shall be applied toward the non-Federal share of--
(A) the project; or
(B) any other project for which the non-Federal interest
has entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the Secretary.
(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this
subsection limits the ability of the non-Federal interest to
pursue credit or reimbursement for work performed by the non-
Federal interest in connection with the project under any
other law (including regulations), authority, or procedure,
including section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2214).
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1815. A bill to codify and delay the implemenlation of and
compliance dates for a final rule relating to interstate transport of
air pollution; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, later this week the Senate will vote on
a resolution to disapprove the Clean Air Act rule designed to limit the
blowing of powerplant pollution from one State to another. In my
opinion, overturning the rule would throw the matter back to
regulators, back to courts, back to lawsuits, and back into a delay.
Senator Pryor of Arkansas and I are introducing today S. 1815. We
have sent it to the desk. It is bipartisan legislation that will
provide what we believe is a better approach, and that approach is to
enact the clean air rule into law but give utilities 1 additional year
in which to comply with it. Our approach would provide certainty and
cleaner air at the lowest possible cost to ratepayers.
The motion to overturn the clean air rule will be offered by the
junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
Tennesseans admire much about our Kentucky neighbors. We admire their
bluegrass, we admire their basketball, we admire their distinguished
Senators. But Tennesseans don't want Kentucky's State income tax, and
we don't want Kentucky's dirty air. We also know our neighbors in North
Carolina don't want Tennessee's dirty air blowing into North Carolina
because they have told us that through lawsuits in the courts, which
they have won.
Air pollution blowing from one State into another makes our citizens
sick, especially our younger Tennesseans and our older Tennesseans. Air
pollution blowing from other States into our State is a jobs issue.
Pollution makes our Great Smoky Mountains more like the ``Great Smoggy
Mountains.'' We like to see our mountains and we like for the 9 million
visitors who come to visit us every year to stay a long time and to
spend a lot of money because that supports our schools and it supports
our State revenue.
Dirty air blowing into Tennessee from other States makes it harder
for us to create jobs in yet another way. I remember 30 years ago when
I was Governor of Tennessee and the Nissan corporation came to our
State. The very first thing Nissan did when it came to Tennessee was to
go down to the State Air Quality Board and ask for an air quality
permit in order to operate its paint plant. Fortunately, the air
quality in the Nashville area was clean enough that Nissan could locate
there. If Nissan hadn't been able to obtain an air quality permit to
operate its paint plant, it would have been in Georgia or some other
State. As a result the auto jobs which have come to Tennessee in the
tens of thousands over the last 30 years would most likely have went to
some other State.
So dirty air blowing from Kentucky into Tennessee or Tennessee into
North Carolina or from any State into another State makes it harder for
the recipient State's communities to get their quality permits. It
makes it harder, for example, for us to say to Volkswagen and its
suppliers: We can provide a home to you because our air is clean enough
so that you can get our air quality permit.
Mr. President, in 2005, the Bush administration first put into place
the predecessor to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that we will be
voting on later this week. Federal courts found that the Bush rule was
flawed in some technical respects and ordered the Environmental
Protection Agency to write a new rule, which some now seek to overturn
by means of the Congressional Review Act. The Bush clean air rule that
was put in place in 2005 has now been there for 6 years. Many utilities
have already taken steps to comply with it.
The pollution standards in the new rule we will be voting on are
about the same as those established in the 2005 Bush rule. As an
example of costs, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Nation's largest
public utility, tells us that complying with the amended rule will cost
its ratepayers between $1 and $2 a month.
We often hear, and I will have to say that a lot of those comments
often come from our side of the aisle, that it is the job of Congress,
not the bureaucrats and the courts, to write the clean air rules. The
commonsense legislation that Senator Pryor and I offer today is an
opportunity for Congress to do its job in a way that will clean the air
at the lowest possible cost to ratepayers.
[[Page S7158]]
____________________