[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13415-13416]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                IMPROVING FEDERAL FLOOD DISASTER POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, like the proverbial pig that has been 
swallowed by the python, the swollen surge of the Mississippi flood 
waters is slowly working its way down the river. The damage inflicted 
is not just to the homes, businesses and farms along the way, but it 
will have serious consequences for the environment at the mouth of the 
Mississippi, the so-called ``dead zone''--further erosion of topsoil 
along the length of the river while raising food prices across America 
and around the world.
  The consensus of the scientific community is that extreme weather 
events like the heavy rainfalls are going to make episodes like this 
more frequent, but even if you do not agree with the scientific 
consensus, one thing is beyond dispute: The policies and practices of 
the Federal Government and of our State and local partners are not just 
contributing to the disaster but are themselves a disaster.
  For generations now, along the riverbank, we have been increasing the 
amount of water in the mighty Mississippi River as we narrow its course 
and reduce its meandering ways, making it much shorter than it was at 
the time of the first European explorers. Weather events resulting from 
global warming and resulting from humans having put more water in the 
river, shortening its course or narrowing it, have a compounding 
effect.
  In the State of Iowa, more than 90 percent of the wetlands, nature's 
natural sponges, have been filled. In vast sections of Iowa, there are 
tiles under many areas of the farmland, making it this massive plumbing 
project that is designed to reduce the power of the land to absorb and 
to retain water. By replacing native vegetation that has deep root 
systems, with corn and soybeans that don't, covering, some have said, 
as much as a third of the State, we further accelerate the runoff, and 
those relatively shallow root systems allow more precious topsoil to 
erode into the already Big Muddy, which in turn reduces the capacity of 
the waterways to carry water. All of these greatly enhance the impact 
of the flood.
  It's not just our agriculture and land use policies that are a 
disaster but how we respond to the challenges posed by the river. From 
levee failures in New Orleans to the upper Mississippi lock and dam 
project, all along the Mississippi, the Corps of Engineers and its 
local and state political and civic leadership, at the behest of 
Congress, are investing in questionable navigation projects while 
ignoring the problems of the integrity of the existing levees. All of a 
sudden, it's news now that there

[[Page 13416]]

are problems with the ability of these levees along the river system to 
provide needed protection. I have said on the floor of the House when 
we were debating the upper Mississippi lock and dam project, that there 
was questionable need since there is steady or even slightly declining 
barge traffic in the river, this project, the most expensive navigation 
project in history would be at the expense of protecting public safety.
  At the end of the day, a critical part of the equation is restoring 
some of the natural balance so the inevitable floods can be handled as 
nature intended, into the surrounding fields and wetlands. This is 
illustrated by what happened when some of the levee failures reflooded 
farmland, relieved the pressure and thus reduced the magnitude of 
flooding downstream. This, obviously, needs to be built into the 
system. Yet there are cries now going out to remove land--106,000 acres 
of conservation reserve in Iowa. Now, this is a program that pays 
farmers to protect the environment and to enhance wildlife habitat and 
to provide a safety valve, that sponge effect.
  Some in Congress are making serious proposals to take this land out 
of protection and to plant it with the very crops that will help make 
this situation worse.
  I have worked for 10 years to reform our flood insurance program so 
that, instead of repeatedly putting people in harm's way, we use the 
money to relocate them or to flood-proof their properties, making them 
less susceptible to damage. We ought to extend flood insurance coverage 
so that all responsible property owners will protect themselves, and it 
will be a signal of the costs of living and of doing business in these 
risky areas.
  As this disaster unfolds, there are actually letters circulating in 
the Senate that would eliminate the requirement of reform legislation 
for providing flood insurance inside these levees despite further proof 
positive that people need it.
  The Federal Government needs to get its policies straight. Some of 
the vast sums we spend in the bloated farm bill should be redirected to 
pay farmers to restore the environment rather than to make it worse.
  Our long-term investments should be to make people safer and slowly 
reduce support for repetitive flood loss, paying to protect and 
relocate rather than simply put them back in harm's way. 
Responsibility, common sense, and sustainable economic and 
environmental practices can help repair our disaster policies which 
make the events, which have occurred for centuries, worse and more 
expensive.
  In so doing we make our communities more livable and our families 
safer, healthier and more economically secure.
  Either way, the farmers will be paid. Doesn't it make sense to pay 
them to make things better?
  I strongly suggest that it's time to increase the capacity of the 
land to absorb water, to get people out of harm's way and to do things 
in a way that's fair for us all.

                          ____________________