[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
=======================================================================
(110-146)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-277 WASHINGTON : 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri GARY G. MILLER, California
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
Chair York
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
Columbia Louisiana
BOB FILNER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida
VACANCY (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Collier, Carol, Executive Director, Delaware River Basin
Commission, West Trenton, New Jersey........................... 5
Freedman, Paul L., Vice President, Water Environment Federation,
Ann Arbor, Michigan............................................ 5
Galloway, Gerald E., Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of
Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.... 5
Larson, Larry, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers, Madison, Wisconsin........................ 5
Mullican, III, William F., Deputy Executive Administrator for
Planning, Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas......... 5
Richter, Brian, Director, Global Freshwater Initiative, The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia........................ 5
Stockton, Steven L., Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers...................................................... 5
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 31
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 32
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 34
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Collier, Carol R................................................. 35
Freedman, Paul L................................................. 44
Galloway, Gerald E............................................... 59
Larson, Larry A.................................................. 66
Mullican, III, William F......................................... 76
Richter, Brian................................................... 83
Stockton, Steven L............................................... 95
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Richter, Brian, Director, Global Freshwater Initiative, The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, responses to questions
from the Subcommittee.......................................... 91
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Paul O. Swartz, Executive
Director, written statement.................................... 100
Water Resources Coalition, written statement..................... 110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.005
COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Johnson. The Committee will come to order.
I need to announce that I am going to have to leave early
to go to a classified briefing. And Mr. Carnahan will be taking
the chair as I depart.
The United States is a country of very diverse water
resource needs. Watershed planning and management provides a
means for Federal and local governments to identify water
resources conflicts and find potential solutions. In fact,
comprehensive watershed management and planning has been raised
in several contexts before this Committee over the past year.
At present, several regions of the country face significant
water resource challenges, ranging from droughts in the
Southeast and Southwest to the recent flooding in the Midwest.
Watershed planning and management can be an important tool to
help make better decisions in resolving these water resource
needs.
Last year, during a hearing on H.R. 135, the Committee
received testimony from experts that highlighted the need for a
comprehensive watershed approach to water resource planning,
one that is not limited just to water supply needs but takes a
comprehensive view of all the water resources activities in a
watershed, including local, State and Federal roles and
activities in water supply, flood control and environmental
restoration.
The experts also advise taking into account the impacts of
global climate change on water resource capacity and future
needs.
WRDA passed last year for the first time in 7 years and
included provisions to reinvigorate broader watershed planning
authority, including a federally funded assessment of water
resource needs for the river basins and watersheds of the
southeastern United States and a region-wide study to review
drought conditions in the southwestern United States.
These region-wide assessments are essentially critical to
southeastern U.S., including the States of Georgia, Alabama and
Florida, which are experiencing the ever-increasing challenge
of balancing water needs during a record drought.
My home State of Texas has had long experience in water
resource planning. Following the drought of the 1950s--I am not
old enough to remember that--Texas began its initial efforts in
State-wide planning. In 1957, the Texas legislature created the
Texas Water Development Board. The board has prepared and
adopted eight water plans. Early efforts focused mostly on
describing the State's water resources and then evolved into a
focus on developing plans addressing water supply, conservation
and environmental issues.
We do have a representative here today. I am very proud of
my State for the planning.
The drought of 1997 was a watershed event for Texas. This
devastating drought caused nearly $5 billion in losses for
agriculture and related industries and caused widespread loss
and anxiety over water supply shortages. As a result of this
statewide event, Texas totally changed its approach to water
planning and moved from a very centralized approach to a
decentralized process that put primary responsibility for water
planning at the regional and local government levels. The new
process greatly increased public participation and implemented
a bottom-up local and regional planning process. This new
effort emphasized conservation and increases in environmental
protection.
Texas recently released its 2007 water plan, which is one
of the most comprehensive State water plans produced. I am very
pleased that we have Mr. William Mullican, deputy executive
administrator for planning of the Texas Water Development
Board, here today to tell us more about the implementation of
this latest plan.
I also look forward to hearing suggestions on how to better
develop watershed planning activities from our panel of experts
today.
I now yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman of Arkansas.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Water resources development planning in the Nation
typically has been narrowly focused, usually addressing a
single purpose and within a single community. It is not
surprising that project planning has developed in this way.
When one learns the purposes of a project and geographic scope,
solutions become easier to identify.
Also, when it is one community that is sharing in the cost
of a water resources development feasibility study, it is
reasonable to expect that the focus will be on the concerns of
that community.
Impacts on other water uses in the watershed are not
necessarily ignored, but they are secondary to the stated
purpose of the ongoing study, be it flood control,
environmental restoration, water supply or some other use.
Competition for water is increasing throughout the country.
More and more often, we are seeing where growing cities' need
for municipal and industrial water supplies are at odds with
similar needs for that same water downstream. This conflicts
with environmental, recreation, navigation or flood control
needs elsewhere in the watershed.
What has been missing in most cases is a comprehensive
watershed plan against which more focused, local feasibility
plans can be measured. Such a comprehensive plan would identify
the water supply and demand in the watershed for all its
purposes and include models that would allow planners to see
how certain decisions in one area would impact water uses
elsewhere. Such an approach would allow local planners to face
the inevitable tradeoffs that occur when multiple users with
different interests compete for a limited resource.
Facing these issues will be difficult, but they must be
done at the State and local level. It is important that we face
the fact there is a limited amount of usable water in any
watershed. At the State and local levels, water must be
conserved, and a plan must be developed on how this limited
resource is going to be shared. If we do not do this, we can
expect to see many more water conflicts developing around the
country.
Citizens in Georgia, Alabama and Florida are currently
struggling to find a way to share the water in a watershed that
is oversubscribed for water use, at least in drought
conditions. This has proved to be a very challenging task for
which there are no easy solutions. We must encourage,
throughout the Nation, a pattern of comprehensive watershed
management that will reduce these kinds of conflicts in the
future.
A broad watershed management plan could be a standard upon
which traditional feasibility studies for individual projects
are measured. Congress could even consider making studies and
projects that are consistent with the watershed management plan
a priority for appropriations and authorizations.
Exactly how we can make watershed management planning
happen is a challenge. What are the appropriate State and
Federal roles of such planning? Who should bear the cost? I
tend to believe that a State-driven planning effort with heavy
local involvement will lead to the best plans with the most
acceptance. Certainly, the Federal Government can help with
technical assistance and some minimal standards.
Fortunately, we have some expert witnesses today who have
been looking at this issue for a very long time and who have
some experience with it. I look forward to hearing their
insights as to how we can move forward with comprehensive
watershed management planning.
And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing on watershed management and planning.
My district encompasses 300 miles of eastern Long Island's
coastline and coastal watersheds that I am very proud to
represent. Maintaining coastal health is an important objective
not only in my district, but also as we seek to preserve our
Nation's environment and to sustain the economies of our States
that rely on safe, clean water.
Specific to this hearing, I am interested in hearing the
panelists' views about the sometimes conflicting
responsibilities and jurisdictions between the Army Corps and
other Federal and State agencies.
In my district, the Fire Island to Montauk Point
Reformulation Study will be concluding next year after decades
of work and millions of Federal dollars being spent. As we near
completion, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of
Interior, through the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the State of New York, have begun
discussions about the implementations of the study's findings.
These three entities have, to varying degrees, different
responsibilities for the implementation of the project, and
they also have somewhat differing perspectives on the goals of
the FIMP project. While I am confident that the Army Corps,
Department of Interior, and New York State will reach a
consensus on how to best protect the residents of my district
and protect the environment, I am interested in understanding
how future projects can be authorized to prevent competing
jurisdictions and responsibilities. Increased coordination will
save taxpayer dollars and speed the completion of critical
projects.
I appreciate the participation of today's panelists, and I
look forward to the discussion of these important issues.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield back.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
Mrs. Drake?
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I would like to thank the Chair for holding today's
hearing.
And I would also like to thank the panel members for
joining us today, and I look forward to your testimony.
The 2nd District of Virginia is home to the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay, which represents the beginning of a 64,000-
square-mile watershed. However, most of us live in a watershed,
whether they are large like the Chesapeake or small like a
local stream or river.
There are incredibly diverse water conditions across our
Nation, from coastlines and bays, such as in the 2nd District,
to mountain, plains and desert environments to the west. In
addition, there are varying levels of watershed management
across the country, which are operated by various entities.
These conditions can sometimes lead to regional conflicts over
water resources, as well as a lack of understanding of the
downstream impacts of developmental decisions.
I look forward to today's hearing to learn more about the
opportunities to explore a more comprehensive and collaborative
approach to watershed management.
Again, I thank you all for being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Carnahan. [presiding.] I want to recognize the
gentlewoman from Hawaii for an opening statement.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to enter for the record the efforts of the
partnerships in Hawaii that already pay attention to a very
comprehensive method of watershed management and planning. That
is because in Hawaii we have a term called "ahapuaa" where we
think of our land and natural and water resources as running
from the mountain to the ocean. And, therefore, a lot of our
planning incorporates that perspective. And so we have nine
partnerships that includes State, county, nonprofits,
businesses and the Federal Government.
And I would like to enter that for the Committee record.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I want to turn to our panel of witnesses today that
consists of Steven Stockton, Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; Carol Collier, executive director, Delaware
River Basin Commission; Larry Larson, executive director,
Association of State Floodplain Managers; Brian Richter, co-
director, Global Freshwater Team, The Nature Conservancy;
Gerald Galloway, professor of engineering, University of
Maryland; Paul Freedman, vice president, Water Environment
Federation; William Mullican, deputy executive administrator
for planning, Texas Water Planning Board.
Your full statements will be placed in the record. We ask
that you try to limit your testimony to about 5 minutes as a
courtesy to the other witnesses.
And we will proceed in the order the witnesses are listed
in the call of the hearing.
Mr. Stockton, please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN L. STOCKTON, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; CAROL COLLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, WEST TRENTON, NEW JERSEY;
LARRY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE
FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, MADISON, WISCONSIN; BRIAN RICHTER,
DIRECTOR, GLOBAL FRESHWATER INITIATIVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY,
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA; GERALD E. GALLOWAY, GLENN L. MARTIN
INSTITUTE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND; PAUL L. FREEDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, WATER
ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, WILLIAM F.
MULLICAN, III, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING,
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AUSTIN, TEXAS
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Steven Stockton, Director of Civil Works
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the importance of comprehensive
watershed management planning on the Corps's role in watershed
planning.
Water resources problems we face today are complex. Trends
that impact water resources include: the impact of droughts,
floods and hurricanes; the migration of people to coastal
States; growing urban centers in arid and semi-arid regions,
all with a need for reliable, sustainable water supply; urban
development in river valleys and its impacts on floodplains;
aging infrastructure; and water conflicts between States, which
become most apparent when shared water resources diminish, such
as under long-term drought conditions. These and other similar
challenges require coordinated and collaborative approaches.
Water resource planning and management requires an
appreciation of the existing and potential future uses of the
water resources and fitting all the pieces and interests into
an integrated plan that addresses those very needs.
We are technical experts in water resources management,
water policy, regulatory permitting, and disaster response.
However, these roles are changing as States and other resource
agencies grow in their engineering and water resource
capabilities, with many showing much greater interest in being
directly involved and even leading the water resource
management opportunities.
Water management is not a sole responsibility of either the
State or the Federal Government, but is rather a shared
responsibility. Both the Federal Government and the States can
benefit from this shared responsibility, and the Corps of
Engineers is working to play a constructive role in these
partnerships.
Historically, the Corps's flood damage reduction and
emergency response efforts have been watershed-based. Since the
great Mississippi River flood of 1927, the Corps has been
building and maintaining a large system of levees and related
features to reduce flood damage in the lower Mississippi River
Valley. This and our later effort to reduce flood damage along
the Missouri River by building large mainstem dams were based
on watershed planning.
For a number of reasons, the civil works construction
program has become more focused on specific, locally based
projects in recent years. The era of large, multipurpose dams
construction has come to a close in this country.
The cost-sharing requirements of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 may have also contributed to this
trend. Our sponsors have limited budgets and are often
interested in minimizing their costs to achieve a solution to a
specific water resource problem. Watershed studies are more
challenging to arrange because they involve multiple sponsors
and require compatible interests and aligned budgets.
Nevertheless, we have undertaken a number of watershed
studies since the passage of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986. For example, the recent Illinois River Basin
Restoration Study covered 30,000 square miles in Illinois,
Indiana and Wisconsin. The large geographic scale, numerous
stakeholders, close teamwork, innovation and commitment to
collaboration earned its selection as the winner of the 2007
Environmental Planning Excellence Award of the American
Planning Association.
Our efforts to manage water on a large geographic scale
have also led to major Corps aquatic ecosystem restoration
programs in the Everglades, in the coastal wetlands ecosystem
of Louisiana, and in and along the upper Mississippi River and
Illinois waterway.
Nonetheless, the cumulative effect of small-scale decision-
making over the past two decades has become more apparent. Now
there is a general recognition of the need for more holistic,
comprehensive approaches to watershed management at all levels
of government.
In 2006, Congress directed the Secretary to initiate a
series of pilot watershed studies to address collaboration and
planning on a watershed scale at full Federal expense. Funds of
$4.5 million were appropriated, and 38 proposals were
considered by the Corps. Five studies from across the Nation
were selected. We are pleased to report that these 2-year
studies nearing completion have benefitted the Nation by
bringing resource and stakeholder groups together to solve
water resource problems, in many cases for the first time. The
unfunded remaining 33 proposals provide an initial indication
of the unmet demands for watershed-based analysis.
The main observation from these studies is that
collaboration is working, partnerships with the States and
other resource agencies have helped to achieve better
coordination. The Corps involvement provided tools and
databases, collection and sharing of data, engineering,
scientific and environmental expertise to assist watershed
planning.
How can the Corps assist States? Today we can provide
planning and technical assistance through a number of programs,
such as authority in Section 729, WRDA 1986, as amended, to
support comprehensive watershed planning through a 75 percent
Federal and 25 percent local cost-share contribution. We also
have planning assistance to States programs.
The Corps role in the water resources community is
evolving. In some cases, we are the lead; in others, we are a
contributor as a facilitator. This is due to the changing role
of the States and local agencies. They are initiating more
water resource planning efforts and projects on their own, and
are approaching the Corps to assist on a technical level.
Partnerships to leverage resources and technical expertise are
clearly a requirement to effectively address future watershed
studies.
In summary, the need for a comprehensive water resource
management and planning for future water resource needs is more
important than it has been in the past. Collaborative
involvement by the Federal community will be a requirement. As
such, the Corps stands ready to work as a partner with State
and local leaders by providing technical expertise, working
with nongovernmental organizations and other State and Federal
agencies, as well as providing science and data to advance
locally led collaborative planning.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify. That concludes my remarks.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Ms. Collier, please proceed.
Ms. Collier. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Carol Collier, executive director of the
Delaware River Basin Commission.
The DRBC was formed in 1961 and is an interstate Federal
compact, the mission of which is to manage water resources
without regard to political boundaries. My bosses are five;
they are Governors of the four basin States--New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware--and a general in the Corps
of Engineers, commander of the North Atlantic Division, who is
the appointee of the President. And when he votes, he votes for
all Federal agencies.
While it is a small basin, it serves 15 million people. New
York City has three huge reservoirs in the very headwaters of
the basin and can divert up to 800 million gallons a day out of
the basin. It also provides water to Philadelphia and the down-
basin estuary area.
This is my favorite topic, so I really appreciate this
opportunity. In my short time, I would like to talk about some
of the problems and my key recommendations, because integrated
water resource management is critical.
One, rivers do not respect political boundaries. To
effectively manage rivers, you need to manage on a watershed
approach and also, you know, connect that with our
socioeconomic political boundaries.
The river divides two States. It is really hard to manage
flood waters just standing on one State and having control of
one shore. So you need to look at it holistically.
In our case, one of DRBC's jobs is to keep the saltwater
out of Philadelphia intakes, having enough fresh water flowing
down the river to push that saltwater back to the bay. The only
way that works is having agreements with the upper-basin
States--New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania--to have a release
program from the New York City reservoirs, State reservoirs,
power reservoirs, so that during drought conditions, plans are
already in place and we know what to do.
A second concern is, our existing laws that govern water
resources are fractured. It made sense when these were put into
place, but now that we know more about the need for holistic
watershed management and the problems that the fracturing can
cause and missing opportunities, we need to put the pieces back
together again.
Thirdly, you have to have a plan. As Mr. Carroll said in
"Alice in Wonderland," if you don't know where you are going,
you will end up somewhere else. And it is really important,
when you are looking at all the different aspects of watershed
management, to have a plan, not one of the 5-inch types that
you think of from back in the 1970s, but one that is done
through an open process, results in priorities, that then we
can work with partners, Federal agencies, States, nonprofits
and private sector to really implement those priorities.
Another direction that is needed is that no one agency can
manage a river basin. It needs to be a collaborative process
with all levels of government and key stakeholders. Through the
planning process we can make the snowballs--and I do have with
me a copy of our resource plan that we put together in 2004 and
some summaries of that, if you would like that--but we need
partners such as the Corps of Engineers, USGS, et cetera, to
really get the actions done.
My key recommendations: One, we need a mechanism to bring
principal parties together to manage a river system. In an
interstate river basin, I really think river basin commissions
are the best mechanism. The commission itself is not above the
States and Federal Government; it provides a forum for those
principal parties to come together and act on a watershed
basis.
Management of natural resources is always changing. You
can't draw a line on a rock and say, "That is what is going to
be the allocation for the future." Science changes, technology
changes, political regimes change, and you need to have a forum
for adaptation. And that is what the basin commission provides.
This is going to be even more important as we address the
concerns of climate change and what that means to our water
resources.
Managing water resources is not easy. We don't sing
"Kumbaya" every day. Everybody has different agendas. But it
takes trust, flexibility and a little sacrifice to make it
work.
You also can't develop a plan in a crisis, and I think that
is what we are seeing down in the Southeast region. You need to
have a plan ahead of time and a river basin commission that not
only has planning capability but implementation capability so
you can put together a drought operating plan or whatever is
necessary.
We need Federal agencies to have more flexibility so they
can really work with these watersheds, either at the State
level or interstate level. We need to encourage funding of
basin planning.
And, finally, a river can be and often is a dividing line,
creating a high wall between States, but it can be the rope
that binds communities together.
Effective integrated water resource management, using river
basin commissions as the local manager and having Federal
agencies on a team that really bring their individual
expertise, can make our rivers the centers of strong
communities and ensure that the water resources are used more
cost-effectively and the system is environmentally sustainable.
I will be glad to answer questions and work with you in the
future to forward watershed management.
Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much.
Next let's turn to Larry Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ASFPM is pleased to once
again testify in front of this Committee, a Committee that, in
our view, has demonstrated a concern for these complex, broad
issues and also an in-depth understanding of these issues.
Unfortunately, I have to start with a statement that I have
made many times before, and that is, those of us in the Midwest
are telling you that once again we are under devastating
flooding. That is not news to many of you, of course, but the
fact we are seeing these impacts shows many of the things that
currently are not working in our plans for watershed
management.
On the TV set, I am seeing too many people say this is an
event that was unexpected, we couldn't predict it, we didn't
know it was going to happen. Well, that tells me that our
programs aren't doing a very good job of helping people
understand risk, helping people understand the impacts of
conflicting watershed management approaches that are leading us
toward some of these water quality, water quantity negative
impacts, public safety issues, that really should be handled as
part of good watershed management.
We shouldn't be seeing things like water treatment plants
that are flooded and not operational, critical facilities like
hospitals and fire stations that aren't operable during flood
events, social disruptions of our communities, businesses out
of operation for long periods of time, drinking water
contaminated and undrinkable, levee design levels that are
inadequate for urban areas and lead to numerous catastrophic
flooding failures and overtoppings, closures of roads, streets
and bridges. All of those are issues that can be handled
through and assisted through good watershed approaches.
We have a number of issues now, but I can assure you that
in the next 50 years, as we add 100 million to 150 million
people to this Nation, those problems are going to multiply
significantly.
I have some detailed recommendations in our written
testimony, but let me give you some what I view as pretty much
outcomes of what we should work collaboratively together on to
get off of this stovepipe problem.
This comprehensive watershed management approach is
absolutely essential, that we have all talked about. That is a
challenge not only for agencies and programs, but it is a
challenge for those of you here in Congress where
jurisdictional issues for each of the Committees is still
stovepiped, as it is in the programs.
So some forum is probably going to be necessary beyond the
formal hearing process, where maybe cross Committees work
together, where we have national commissions that you can
appoint and come back to you with broad-based recommendations.
Secondly, room for our rivers and oceans. Our deep
floodplains and our sensitive ecosystems are areas where we
should not build--and those that are there, we need to start a
gradual retreat from those high-risk and ecologically sensitive
areas.
We need to reverse some of the perverse incentives we
currently have, reform those Federal programs that incentivize
unwise development in our watersheds. And Federal agency
programs that cause adverse impacts on other communities and
other properties need to be adjusted so those things don't
occur, both on a water quality and a water quantity basis. And
we need to restore and enhance those natural systems on our
rivers and coasts.
The big issue is renaissance of government, of course, of
how we govern water resources management. Both of the previous
speakers have talked about that.
Steve has mentioned that the Federal Government role is
changing, more to that of a facilitator and technical
assistance, less into the actual doing. The bottom-up approach
is key and essential. It is a shared responsibility, and it is
one that we need to collaborate on and work on.
Most of the solutions to these issues lie in land use,
comprehensive planning, community planning. Those are not
functions of the Federal Government under our Constitution.
They fall under the role of State and local governments. So we
must build off of that to really come into our solutions.
Then we have to promote personal and public responsibility.
We do have programs that reward those who do things wrong. We
need to modify that and change that, so we are rewarding those
communities and people who act responsibly and do the right
thing, who understand that shared responsibility and accept
their cost and risk.
One of the first simple things, for example, is the Corps
of Engineers' programs for nonstructural could be cost-shared
at a larger cost share, say, 75-25, as opposed to 65-25 for
structural. And I think that is a win for the Federal
Government, because, in the long term, the Federal Government
would not be coming back in, having to build and repair
structural measures like we see now--levees that are failed,
rebuild the levees, or help for operation and maintenance. So,
in the long term, those non-structural kinds of programs should
be better cost-shared. That is just one point that I wanted to
raise.
With that, I will pass on the rest of it. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Mr. Richter?
Mr. Richter. Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank
you for this opportunity to testify on comprehensive watershed
planning and management.
My name is Brian Richter, and I am the director of The
Nature Conservancy's Global Freshwater Team. The Nature
Conservancy is a leading conservation organization that
protects ecologically important places for both people and
nature. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in
all 50 States and in more than 30 foreign countries.
The comments that I am going to provide today are drawn
from our experience of working on the ground with the Corps of
Engineers and other water managers to restore and protect
aquatic ecosystems.
The idea of a watershed approach has been around for some
time, but it is a term that remains poorly defined and not yet
commonly applied. We believe that a watershed approach should
be based on natural hydrologic processes that consider water
and sediment movement along the river, hydrologic connections
between headwaters and downstream areas, including estuaries,
and the role of properly functioning floodplains, as some of
the previous speakers have emphasized.
This watershed process-based approach should fully
incorporate the role of healthy and functioning ecosystems such
as wetlands into the project planning and evaluation. By
determining how a project or a management activity will affect
the downstream systems, considering upstream management actions
and land uses in the watershed, a watershed process-based
approach can bring valuable insights to the planning and design
of water resource projects.
To employ such an approach, the current water resource
planning process must be improved. Instead of planning
individual projects in isolation, water resource planning
efforts should be more frequently seeking to develop and
utilize watershed-based tools that allow the Corps and other
key stakeholders to make critical decisions about water
resources management.
One example of such a tool is a computer-based decision
support system being developed by the Army Corps of Engineers
and The Nature Conservancy in the Upper Delaware River
Watershed. This innovative computer tool will model key
physical and biological variables, existing infrastructure, and
hydrologic conditions across the watershed. The information
will allow State and Federal agencies, as well as key
stakeholders, to evaluate the impact and viability of various
strategies for reducing flood heights throughout the basin.
Comprehensive watershed management should also include an
approach to management of dams and reservoirs that seeks to
optimize resource goals throughout watersheds.
The benefits of comprehensive dam management are
illustrated through our work on the Penobscot River in Maine,
where we are working with a variety of partners to restore
hundreds of miles of spawning habitat for endangered Atlantic
salmon and numerous other fish species. Under an innovative
agreement between the Penobscot River Restoration Trust and the
PPL Corporation, three mainstem hydropower dams will be removed
in a state-of-the-art fish-passage structure constructed around
a fourth dam.
To compensate for the lost energy production due to the
removal of the three dams, hydropower production will be
increased at other dams in the same watershed. Because the
Penobscot project is built on a comprehensive multi-dam
evaluation of both hydropower and ecosystem needs across the
entire river basin, it will achieve one of the largest river
and migratory fish restoration efforts in the eastern United
States with little or no hydropower loss.
The Conservancy is also working with the Corps to more
comprehensively manage Corps reservoirs through our mutual
Sustainable Rivers Project. This innovative partnership seeks
to incorporate a broader array of watershed needs, such as
downstream ecosystem health, into the operation of Corps dams.
Our work to date has already demonstrated at several sites
that modest adjustments to existing dam operations can
accommodate a broader set of watershed needs without impacting
the original purposes of the dam. In fact, on the Green River
in Kentucky, our work with the Corps to restore the river's
health by modifying dam operations actually improved the flood
control performance of the dam and extended the recreation
season on the reservoir.
Comprehensively managing our water resources
infrastructure, in combination with downstream floodplain
management, is a key component of the work at the Sustainable
Rivers Project sites, as well as in some of our international
water management efforts.
Presently, a tremendous volume of potential water storage
space is left empty behind dams because of the spaces needed to
be reserved to capture incoming floods and protect downstream
structures and roads.
But on the Yangtze River in China we have developed a
proposal that is under serious consideration by the Chinese
Government to restore the Yangtze Valley's natural floodplain
and thereby reduce dependence on the dams as a sole means of
flood management. By using floodplains for flood storage
instead of dams, the hydropower production at these dams can be
increased, expanding a sustainable energy source for this
country.
This example illustrates how a comprehensive approach for
managing infrastructure, together with floodplains, can create
opportunities for greater efficiency and provides the ability
to meet multiple watershed goals, such as flood risk
management, hydropower production and ecosystem restoration.
Lastly, while the examples above illustrate the importance
of improving our planning techniques and better managing our
infrastructure in a watershed context, we must also examine how
water resource projects are authorized and funded. A project-
by-project authorization and funding process makes
comprehensive watershed management very, very challenging.
Instead, we should be managing projects on a regional or
watershed basis by investing in planning tools and approaches
that evaluate watershed-wide processes and needs and in
implementing projects consistent with the information and the
learning that is generated. Regional or watershed-based
authorizations, focused on projects that comprehensively meet
watershed goals, would encourage such an approach.
To conclude, the Conservancy believes that comprehensively
managing our water resources across watersheds can have
enormous benefits, ranging from efficient management of
infrastructure to maximizing Federal investments to meet
multiple needs.
Thank you for holding this hearing today and providing us
with the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's views
and testimony on this topic. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Galloway with the University of Maryland.
Mr. Galloway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. It is a distinct privilege for me to participate in
this important and timely hearing. I am Gerald Galloway. I am a
professor of engineering at the University of Maryland, where I
teach and do research in water resources.
I come here today to speak to the need for watershed
planning, as we continue the development, maintenance and
restoration of our Nation's water resources. These resources
cannot be sustainably, efficiently and safely developed if we
continue to address problems on a project-by-project basis.
Watershed planning and management have brought great
rewards to this country. It is not new. In 1927, the Congress
directed the Corps of Engineers to conduct comprehensive river
basin studies across the United States. These "308" studies
provided the basis for much of the work that took place in the
1930s and 1940s, including the TVA and on the Columbia.
TVA is a shining example, as each issue TVA faces, whether
it was power production, navigation, flood control, malaria
prevention, recreation or the environment, was studied in its
broadest context and weighed in relation to the others. It was
truly systems planning.
Failing to see the need for watershed planning can have
serious consequences. We now recognize that, for nearly 40
years, the Nation invested heavily in hurricane protection for
New Orleans through construction of levees and other structures
without recognizing that the wetlands of coastal Louisiana's
watershed were key elements of a natural structural system that
provided storm buffering for New Orleans and protection for
oil, gas, shipping and fishing industries that generate
revenues for the State and the Nation and sustain critical
ecosystems.
If watershed planning makes sense, why is it not being
accomplished? Well, the nature of the congressional
authorization, appropriation and project-focused process
supports the stovepipe approach you have heard several people
mention and gives projects a priority over watershed planning.
An example: St. Louis sits at the junction of the Missouri,
Mississippi and Illinois rivers, and those living in the area,
as we have seen on television day after day, rely on levees for
their protection. They campaign for increases in the size of
their existing levees. Without a comprehensive plan to guide
its action, the Corps is forced to look at each levee project
in isolation and cannot judge what the cumulative impact on
people and the environment will be from new levees.
In 2004, a Senate Committee resolution authorized a
comprehensive watershed study of this critical area, yet no
funds have been provided to date to carry out this important
effort, and none are in the budget for 2009. Planning has no
priority.
To get watershed/basin level planning off the ground, there
must be better collaboration among Federal agencies and the
States within the basins. There must be better collaboration
among congressional Committees authorizing and funding water
programs. Committee reports should require watershed planning
as a basis for project approval.
The administration, the Congress and the States must
develop an approach for management of activities within the
watershed and decide who is going to be in charge. Is one
Federal agency going to be the lead systems integrator for
Federal activities? Is it top-down, or is it bottoms-up?
Texas is a great example for much of us in their bottoms-up
planning. Where does bottoms-up and top-down meet, and how can
we make that work?
While the United States has put watershed planning on the
back burner, other nations have not. The European Union finds,
and I quote, "The best model for a single system of water
management is management by river basin," unquote. Initiatives
for the Maas, the Schelde or the Rhine river basins, very large
basins, have served as positive examples of this approach.
Australia also has a long problem with water, and they have
been dealing with this in many parts of its country over the
last decades, through watershed, what they call catchment
management, to ensure that the waters are used effectively and
that decision-makers consider the balance among the multiple
uses of this resource.
Like the European nations, Australia has found that the
integration that is achieved through catchment management has
reduced conflicts over water, improved the efficiency of the
use of the resource, and more fully involved the stakeholders,
an important factor.
Watershed planning eliminates long-term problems. We have
technologies and tools, finally, such as shared-vision planning
and the models that Brian Richter has just mentioned, that make
this possible.
I would urge the Congress to carefully examine the projects
it authorizes to ensure that these projects, as they authorize
them, are set within a watershed context, and that the
authorization and eventual funding by the Congress of
individual projects is not creating watershed problems. Now is
certainly the time for you to demand watershed planning and
management.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much, Dr. Galloway. I
especially appreciate your reference to St. Louis.
And let's go on now to Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Freedman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Paul Freedman. I am vice president
of the Water Environment Federation and president of Limnotech,
an environmental consulting firm I founded over 30 years ago. I
have been involved in hundreds of water and watershed
management projects coast to coast, and have chaired five
national conferences on watershed management.
My written testimony highlights why the watershed
management approach is the only logical and effective approach
to solve today's large-scale and complex water resource
challenges. In my statement, I offered several elements of
success, including coordination among Federal programs, large-
scale water planning, integrating both land use and water
planning, the need for comprehensive data and modeling, and
multi-stakeholder involvement.
But as I sat to write my oral presentation and keep it
within the 5 minutes, I realized some irony. Twelve years ago
this month, I co-chaired one of the earliest and largest
watershed conferences to ever occur. WEF organized it jointly
with 15 Federal agencies. Well over 1,000 experts participated,
and more than 5,000 participated through video conference.
Hundreds of papers were delivered, and a lot of excitement was
generated, illustrated by this fat proceedings book.
At the time, it was kind of this "a-ha" moment, you know.
We had made enormous progress since the Clean Water Act of
1972, but further progress toward restoring the physical,
chemical and biologic health of our water resources and
protecting public health and well-being was stalled. Everyone
agreed there: Watershed management was the only answer to take
us into the 21st century. It was viewed as the new paradigm.
Yet here we sit, 12 years later, and those 15 Federal
agencies, despite good intentions, have largely fallen back
into siloed, programmatic approaches, focusing on
administrative and legislative mandates and not necessarily
maximizing the environmental outcomes to the public welfare.
Unfortunately today, the same problems exist that we had in the
1990s, compounded by concerns about water scarcity and climate
change.
Yet, in the face of this, we are back focusing on specific
programs rather than holistic solutions. We have limited agency
cooperation, though very well-intentioned people. And we have
many good examples. You have heard many from the panelists here
today, but most are kind of isolated and have limited success,
because widescale and integrated implementation of the
watershed approach seems to be limited by programmatic
constraints. The missing piece is a compelling articulation of
the goal. Congress needs to articulate the watershed approach
as our national policy toward water resources.
I often say that today's problems are dramatically
different in scale and in nature than those of the 1970s. One
example, the Clean Water Act, was passed when the environmental
drivers were point-sourced wastewater pollution. Today the
drivers are nonpoint sources, land use, ecosystem restoration,
water scarcity, flooding, invasive species, endocrine
disruptors, climate change, et cetera. The list goes on. And
trying to solve these problems with the 1972 Clean Water Act is
like trying to use a 1972 auto repair manual to repair a 2008
electric hybrid; it just doesn't work. So it is with other
independent and dated Federal programs that don't reflect the
large scale and complexity of the problems we are dealing with
today.
So I applaud this Subcommittee for examining how we could
undertake comprehensive watershed planning and management. I
encourage you to consider bold action to change the course of
our water resource programs. We need to move toward a holistic
watershed framework that integrates what are now competing
water resource concerns, scrambling for attention of Federal
agencies and dollars, that often work in isolation and even, at
times, cross purpose.
I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak before
your Committee today. And WEF would certainly be happy to work
with you on this important challenge.
Thank you, again, for the time.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much.
Finally, let's turn to William Mullican with the Texas
Water Development Board.
Mr. Mullican. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. For the record, my name Bill Mullican. I am deputy
executive administrator for water science and conservation at
the Texas Water Development Board.
I would like to again echo my appreciation for this
Subcommittee, for your diligence to focusing on water resource
issues, not only for the Nation, but also for many issues that
have been of particular importance to the State of Texas.
I would like to, rather than repeat many of my co-
panelists' remarks, just simply state that I echo the issues
that they have raised with respect to the absolute importance
and criticality of moving forward with a comprehensive
watershed management and planning approach for the nation.
The value of water, as far as it relates to our economy,
our environment and our public health, simply cannot be
quantified. We can no longer afford the inefficiencies or the
ineffectiveness of project-specific, project-driven, silo-
driven, mission-driven watershed planning where we often and
almost always fail to realize opportunities that exist within a
watershed for other efficiencies of scale.
What I would really like to do today is just focus on a
couple of things: what I believe watershed planning for the
21st century really must entail; a bit about the Texas
experience and Texas's experience with respect to the Federal
activities on watershed planning; and then, finally, a
recommendation.
First, our working definition. And this is just my working
definition of watershed planning. Comprehensive watershed
planning is sort of a sequential process. It seems to me that,
most often, while we might do one piece or another piece of
this process, we always seem to forget to carry it through to
fruition. I believe that we have to evaluate and gain an
understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and
economic characteristics of our watersheds. I believe we have
to integrate those characteristics of the watersheds.
I think we then need to move to the next level, whereas we
explore the opportunities and challenges that we face in those
watersheds, especially as it relates to changing conditions,
whether it be the implementation of a new water supply project,
the implementation of an environmental restoration project, or
even something so broadly applicable as the climate variability
that undoubtedly is going to be affecting our watersheds.
We then have to identify all potentially feasible water
management strategies, projects, management objectives,
everything that might be identified in order to facilitate the
compilation of an effective watershed plan. And then, through a
stakeholder-driven process, we must compile those
recommendations into a plan that can then be implemented.
Often, though, this is where, even if in an ideal world
this is where we are at the end, the reality of it is, is that
if you don't put in place a process to monitor implementation
of that plan and also put in place a process that allows to
systematically review and revise that plan based on changed
conditions, then the reality is that plan will quickly become
shelf art and of little value.
As far as the Texas experience is concerned, as Madam Chair
was just describing, we have suffered through some very
significant droughts. We basically expect drought and are very
happy when it rains. And right now we are in the early stages
of what appears to be another significant drought.
In the 2007 State water plan, there were a number of
findings. For example, we now know that our population
projections will increase from 23 million people today to 46
million people by 2060. Our current water supplies are on the
order of about 17.9 million acre feet per year. We project that
that will decline, due to the mining of aquifers and
sedimentation in our reservoirs, down to 14.5 million acre feet
per year. We understand, though, that our demands for that
water supply will increase from about 18.1 million acre feet
today to a little over 21 million acre feet per year by 2060.
The result is, if we do nothing right now today, for the
first time in our 50-year history of water planning, we will be
in the red by about 3.8 million acre feet in 2010, and that
number will increase to almost 9 million acre feet per year by
2060. The bottom line is, this planning process, which is
basically a watershed planning process, for water supply has
resulted in an understanding in the State of Texas of the
crisis that we face if we do not do anything.
But the reality of it is that that watershed planning
approach for water supply was just that; it was only water
supply planning. While we did try to take into consideration
water quality and land use and environmental issues, the
reality of it is that the focus on water supply planning did
not really do the kind of job that we felt like needed to
happen in those other areas.
So, in the last legislative session in 2007, the Texas
legislature passed Senate Bill 3, which, in part, contained a
new watershed effort to look at environmental flows. In other
words, what this will do is it has created a similar
stakeholder-led process on a watershed-by-watershed basis where
recommendations will be developed for how much water needs to
be in our streams and rivers and freshwater inflows into our
bays and estuaries in order to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
That parallel watershed approach to environmental issues will
then be integrated into our water supply planning process so
that it will then ultimately become a comprehensive effort.
We are not there. We have a lot of work to do. But what we
have realized is that doing nothing is no longer an option. We
are very concerned about the impacts of drought. And, in fact,
in the last legislative session, the Texas legislature
appropriated $750 million just for this 2-year biennium to
implement water supply projects so that we will be prepared
when the next drought hits.
As far as our involvement with the Federal agencies on
watershed planning, I echo the remarks of my co-panelists in
that the reality of it is it is a very fragmented approach and
it has many inefficiencies built into it that we simply can no
longer afford as a Nation or as local sponsors working with the
Federal Government.
And our recommendation to you today, which is somewhat more
repetitive of my remarks back in November when you were
considering H.R. 135, is simply this: We would ask that you
convene a national forum such that you can pull together all
the Federal agencies, the States, regional authorities and
NGOs, and have a discussion about what is the appropriate role
for the Federal Government and all the agencies in the
watershed planning and management activities to ensure that we
can gain the kind of efficiencies and effectiveness that are
going to be needed if we are going to meet the demands of our
Nation as we move forward in protecting our watersheds.
Thank you. And I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you all very much.
I am going to start off with a couple of questions before
we go to the other Members.
But let me start with Mr. Mullican and Mr. Richter. I
wanted to ask these questions of you.
Texas, as you indicated, has recently completed your State-
wide watershed planning exercise. Do you think that kind of
exercise--has that been done around the country? Is that
something that could be used as a model for other States?
And to Mr. Richter, the computer-based system that was used
with the Corps in the Delaware River Basin, is that something
that could be useful in other watersheds around the country?
And we will start with Mr. Mullican.
Mr. Mullican. Yes, sir. In fact, we have worked, Texas has
worked with a number of States in the United States, in fact, I
personally have worked with about 14 States, in helping them to
understand the Texas model for regional water planning. Many of
those States are in various different stages of implementing
their own version of the Texas model.
Now, I think it is important to note, just as it is in
Texas, with average rainfall of 6 inches in the west and 60
inches in the east, there is no one-size-that-fits-all, and it
is on a State-by-State basis. There are pieces of our approach
that are obviously, though, transferrable and have, in fact,
been transferred. For example, in Pennsylvania, they have a
very similar water supply planning process in action right now
in Pennsylvania.
I think the most important component of it, though, is the
realization that it has to be a stakeholder-led process. In
Texas, we defined 11 different interests by law that have to be
involved in each one of these regional planning groups. And if
you don't have the right interests at the table, then whatever
decisions come out of that process are not going to be agreed
to by the greater community.
The second thing is, is there is an almost overnight
realization that we had when we started down this path of the
need for good data and good science. And as a result of that,
the State has invested about $50 million over the last decade
in the development of water data, of water science, and
bringing together the facilitation that is needed to understand
that analysis.
So we have transferred this information to other States.
And I know that there are a number of States, from California
to Pennsylvania and Georgia, that are looking for, for example,
looking at the implementation of something similar to the Texas
model.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Mr. Richter?
Mr. Richter. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by emphasizing that, although we are quite
happy with the particular model that we are developing in the
upper Delaware, I want to caution against any conversation
about which model is the best one to use for these purposes.
And, in fact, one of the maladies that all of these
panelists are sharing with you today is, oftentimes, because of
the competition among different models or different impressions
about what is the best model--it is "my model is better than
your model"--can be one of the dysfunctions that results in us
not being able to move forward with comprehensive watershed
planning.
So I think the key issue is really rather that somebody
needs to have clear directive and authority for leading the
watershed planning process; that there is no clear directive.
You have heard from the panelists--Dr. Galloway said whether it
comes from the bottom-up or the top-down doesn't really matter.
Ms. Collier, from the Delaware River Basin Commission, is a
tremendous example, a terrific example of an organization that
was provided with clear authority and clear directive and
funding capabilities to enable them to do the kind of
comprehensive watershed planning that I think we are all
seeking here.
So I really want to focus the issue on providing some
authority and enabling some leadership, as opposed to
technology and the tools. The technology and the tools are very
sophisticated, very well-advanced. And that really isn't what
is limiting our potential here.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And for Mr. Stockton, some have
been critical of the watershed planning process for focusing on
isolated water resource issues that are lead by single State or
Federal agencies without enough outside input. Can you identify
for us some steps you think the Corps either has taken or can
take to ensure that watershed plan is more comprehensive and
has sufficient public input along the way.
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have
recently issued, actually about 3 years ago, we issued an
engineering regulation, called Planning in a Collaborative
Environment, trying to really focus more on broadening our
scope, broadening the involvement of other folks in that
process. We are also currently in the process of revising the
Corps of Engineers principals and guidelines for how we
formulate and plan projects. And we would like to see the whole
comprehensive water resource planning component of that as it
goes through the process.
I think one of our limitations that has been addressed here
is that we are a project-funded organization. We don't have
walking around money to collaborate unless we get specific
funding for doing a watershed study. It is just the way we get
our appropriation and funding typically drives our ability to
look at a broader range of problems that is within a watershed
and to solicit through cost-sharing sponsors necessary to
partner with us. I think that is probably the biggest
limitation.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much. Next I want to turn to
Mr. Boozman from Arkansas.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stockton, what do
you see as the advantages and disadvantages of the Corps'
existing planning authority found in section 729 of WRDA 1986?
So right now we have current legislation in place. What are the
pros and cons of the legislation as far as you can see?
Mr. Stockton. I think it is a great piece of legislation.
It allows us to do comprehensive watershed planning. The
difficulties are as you look at larger geographic areas,
watersheds, is to solicit the interest of a stakeholder,
sponsor, to come up with that 25 percent non-Federal share, to
look at that broader range of project issues within the
watershed.
So I think that is probably the biggest limitation. It is
not so much on the authority side. I think we have all the
authorities we need to do comprehensive watershed planning. The
hard part is to develop the partnerships and the sponsorship to
participate financially.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Larson, in a similar vein, what you do see
as the appropriate division of responsibilities between state,
local governments and the Federal Government in carrying out
comprehensive watershed planning?
Mr. Larson. Again, I think all of us would probably talk
commonly saying there is a role for every level, but the bottom
up approach starting at the watershed level, with the local
units of governments, with the States playing a coordinating
role and an integrating role, and the Federal Government
playing a facilitation and a technical assistance role that Mr.
Stockton has talked about, that we have all talked about.
Everyone has that role, but we have gone too many years
with this top down approach that needs to be inverted if we are
really going to end up with an approach that works.
Again going toward what we have all talked about as saying
that any specific plan must fit within the context of a total
watershed plan.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Stockton mentioned that one of the
obstacles was the Corps could step in and help with the big
approach, but trying to find the political will of the local
entities, sometimes communities, counties, the State, sometimes
interstates to come up with the 25 percent match. What do you
see as the biggest obstacle? Do you see that also as a--
Mr. Larson. Well, to me it is an obstacle because we have
let it become an obstacle. The first thing we need to do is
disabuse governors, local community officials and our citizens
of the notion that the Federal Government is going to solve
this problem, because they are not. There isn't enough money in
the Federal Government to solve this problem. There isn't the
ability overall, or the authority overall to make it happen.
But they believe that the Federal Government will. And as long
as they do that, making it a priority at the local level to put
resources into solving these problems isn't going to happen.
Our programs right now, our Federal programs don't incentivize
those communities and citizens to take the leadership in this
activity or the States.
So until we set up a structure through our Federal programs
that say to them if you do, those communities and States that
do these things and do them right, you are going to get the
Federal technical assistance that will help you through the
process to get these implemented, it is not going to change. I
don't believe it is going to change.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Dr. Galloway, we have heard a lot of discussion on the need
for the comprehensive watershed planning obviously, most of it
is done at the Federal level done by the Corps. What do you
think that the agency or that the Corps ought to be doing with
regard to the planning process? In other words, where do you
see their function being?
Mr. Galloway. The Corps, certainly in many of the studies,
has to be the lead for dealing with watershed or a basin plan.
But in other cases, I think the Corps has to be in a position
to support others in a basin, for example where water quality
is a preeminent issue.
In larger basins, you can take the Missouri Basin, or the
Mississippi, if you really want to go large, and you recognize
you will need an agency that has work in all of those States,
all the States of the Basin, and recognizes the immensity of
the operation. But it can't be just the Corps of Engineers, it
has to be collaborative among the agencies.
And I really believe that this idea of the Federal agency
being the lead integrator of the Federal approach can vary from
location to location as to who is in charge and what the States
roles can be. So you are very familiar with the challenges of
trying to get the States in the Missouri Basin to agree on
anything. You do need some sort of Federal leadership in that
regard just as Ms. Collier has done in the Delaware Basin. But
again, I think it is case by case, where the amount of
involvement and the roles can differ.
Mr. Boozman. I agree. In our case with Missouri and then
the Oklahoma situation that we have, you bring the EPA and
other agencies and the politics of it gets very difficult. So
we appreciate you all being here. And I will go ahead and defer
to the next round, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carnahan. Next, I want to yield to the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in my
opening statement, I am interested in the issue of how to
resolve or overcome a situation in which different agencies,
particularly different Federal agencies approach the solving of
a problem from different perspectives. And let me be specific,
we have this Fire Island and Montauk Point reformulation study
in my district, it is actually a very important study that will
govern how we protect 83 miles of shoreline and the associated
watershed area. The Army Corps is approaching this issue
consistent with the goal of national economic development. So
that is to say that they are focusing on shoreline protection
and on storm damage mitigation.
The Department of the Interior is approaching this from the
perspective of national ecosystem restoration. So they are
focusing on restoration of natural habitat and on maintenance
of the natural processes in terms of shoreline protection. And
these areas don't have to be mutually exclusive, but there is a
very strong propensity for them to be viewed as mutually
exclusive.
And so, Mr. Stockton, I am going to ask you to comment on
this first, and perhaps Mr. Richter, if you could comment on
this. I am very interested in how these differing perspectives
can be reconciled. So I would appreciate your comments on that.
Mr. Stockton. The rules by which we formulate projects and
plan them are based upon Principles and Guidelines from 1983.
We are currently in the process of revising those. The current
Principles and Guidelines really focus on the National Economic
Development plan. Those are kind of rules that drive us. And a
lot of that is policy. Actually the existing rules actually do
give us flexibility to look at an environmental quality
account, social effects, regional economic benefits, but
because of the budgetary limitations we, through policy, focus
primarily just on the national economic development.
As we are working through our revisions to the Principles
and Guidelines, we are hoping to elevate the environmental
quality account up to a coequal status, if you will, with the
national economic development account. So it will be easier for
us to do the tradeoffs, recognizing that all of these projects
serve multiple purposes and they don't have to be mutually
exclusive. So I think we are looking at our policies, trying to
improve those and I think we can work through that. So I think
there is hope, but right now the focus is on national economic
development.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Richter.
Mr. Richter. Yes, it may seem like I am oversimplifying,
but I think, what we are seeing around the world is when we
create the forum for dialogue between different agencies,
different stakeholders, different interests to come together
and bring their expertise and their information and their
different values in a context where they can learn from each
other, then some very, very positive things can happen.
The question is what kind of a catalyst do we need to
provide in order for that type of forum to emerge? And again, I
don't think that there is any one particular governance
framework that is going to fit for all these situations, but we
do have a lot of good examples across the United States and
around the world where that type of forum has emerged because
there was somebody who took the leadership to direct that the
planning activity take place, and then there was funding
support to enable it to happen.
So in Texas they passed Senate bill 1, the State
legislature provided funding to enable them to do watershed
planning to talk about water supply and allocation and sharing
the water in the major river basins across the State.
Again, in the case of Delaware River Basin Commission,
again, the same initiative, the same leadership to create that
Commission, to create that forum where those different
interests and ideas and values can come together along with the
funding source. So if we could find the right chemistry, and in
your situation there in New York, there probably are a couple
of different governance models to look at, but what is
necessary is for somebody to create the context and find the
funding to enable it, to catalyze it.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back
thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Next we will go to Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Stockton
and mostly to Mr. Galloway. Mr. Stockton, from what I am
hearing is they want a leadership, or least the recommendation
is for the Bureau to be the leader, but to have a specific
plan. Does your 83 principals and guidelines, the new
provisions that you are going to hopefully go and institute it
would include being able to carry out a plan that maybe then
set up to establish that leadership necessary to be able to
carry out what these panelists are talking about. And that
would then include not only the leadership, but the funding
request to Congress to be able then to carry out those things,
and not just leave them in limbo, because some of those
entities may not of themselves be able to afford to set them up
by themselves.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am. I think we would like to see the
watershed approach embedded within our revised Principles and
Guidelines. We are currently going through interagency
coordination with that now, but it is really one of the key
parts that we would like to see in the process and procedures
by which we put together plans. We have very strong
collaborative working relationships with other Federal
agencies, with the States, with local and Federal sponsors. And
we really do want to have a collaborative bottoms up approach,
where we can perform a facilitative role to provide that
leadership, to bring folks together, with the technical tools,
the models so they can see what the trade offs are to look at
alternative plans. We do see a role for us. But it does require
appropriations.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are prepared to implement them into
your new plan?
Mr. Stockton. If funds are appropriated, yes, we would
include them in our planning process.
Mrs. Napolitano. In setting forth the roles, the modeling
that you would say, would you use those that have been
successful? And to what extent would people be able to have
their own, because it is not a one-size-fits-all.
Mr. Stockton. Absolutely not, no. Every model you put
together, it has the technical background to it, but as people
go through these shared vision planning, they identify what the
goals and objectives are in the watershed and then you have the
technical tools behind that to look at the trade offs of
different alternative plans. And so people are very involved in
it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does any of this look for the ability to
be able to capture some of that watershed to run off into
aquifers in the identification through USGS of those aquifers?
Mr. Stockton. Typically our primary mission areas are flood
damage reduction, navigation and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
So we typically don't look too hard at that. I think as we move
into more integrated water resource management comprehensive
planning, we would want to look at those other alternatives.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I certainly hope you do, because
given the fact that we have climate warming and a lot of that
runoff is going to waste sort of kind of, we need to understand
that we need to begin to look at more storage, and above ground
will be evaporated more quickly. USGS does only one aquifer
study a year. I think we need to speed that up. So possibly
working with USGS, and maybe having some joint working
relationship about prioritizing areas that are heavily in need
of the work and being able to bring all the other agencies to
fore to assist in the projects.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does that make sense?
Mr. Galloway. When we did the 1994 study after the 1993
Mississippi flood, we determined a lot of agencies as you have
just described, would love to come to participate in
collaborative planning, but they have no money. There needs to
be, and we recommended provisions be made in the authorizations
and appropriations for these different agencies, USGS,
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, et cetera, to
have funds to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers and not
have to come to the Corps of Engineers for every nickel that
they needed to do work.
And again, in spite of the fact that you would really like
to work, if you don't have the money it is awfully hard to come
to the party. And I think that's what we hope you could
encourage in the appropriations for these agencies support for
the comprehensive planing of the Corps.
Mrs. Napolitano. And going back to Mr. Stockton, I am
assuming that most Federal agencies do have the adequate
authority or funding to do the comprehensive watershed planning
or is new authority needed to make Federal agencies better
partners?
Mr. Stockton. I think we have the authority to do that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, explain.
Mr. Stockton. Well, it depends on each specific study
authorization that we are provided.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay, okay.
Mr. Stockton. It tells us what the focus of that study is,
whether it is navigation, flood , etc. Typically water supply
is outside of our mission areas, so you get into storage, those
kinds of things. It is really one of our silos that belongs to
another agency or to the States. We only do it for multi
purpose projects when it is ancillary to one of those
specifically authorized purposes.
So yes, we would like to do it for watershed studies and,
depending upon how they are authorized, we can do it. It is
just that you need the appropriations necessary to actually
engage the other Federal agencies, the State agencies, and the
NGOs to bring them together.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it made sense to do an overall
approach, instead of just a single agency focusing on one thing
without considering the rest. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Carnahan. Next, I want to recognize Mr. Hall of New
York.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district, which is
part of the Delaware River Basin watershed and home to a number
of other waters, watershed management is a serious concern. We
have had several major flooding events in the last few years.
Three 50-year floods in the last 5 years to be exact. As I
watch the news as the crest moves down the Mississippi River, I
think we are all thinking about the old ways of managing
watersheds versus the new ones that we may be moving toward.
Homeowners and local farmers are holding their breath
alike, both in my district, the 19th district of New York which
has the Hudson Valley, the Delaware Valley, the Minisink, the
Wallkill, the 10 mile river, all of which, with the exception
of the Hudson, has an amazing capacity, but all tributaries in
Delaware and its tributaries have flooded numerous times in
recent years.
So I am happy to see that both a number of you, if not all,
are calling for an integrated holistic approach to watershed
management. If management was fully integrated where would
flood prevention fall as a priority? And what actions could be
taken to combine for flood prevention with other goals? I guess
I would start by asking Mr. Stockton.
Mr. Stockton. Clearly, water is one of those resources that
has multiple uses and purposes in how you manage it. And I
think the Delaware River Basin Commission is a perfect example
of how you actually take all those competing interests, those
needs for flood risk reduction, for water supply, for instream
flows for environmental purposes and how you would strike those
different balances. I would hope that public safety and
protecting people's lives and properties would rank very high.
But it is all a question of tradeoffs and how you accept
less risk in one area and perhaps you accept more risk in
another one of those areas. So it really is part of the
process.
Mr. Hall. Ms. Collier, would you like to weigh in?
Ms. Collier. Yes, sir, thank you. After those three floods,
the four governors of the Basin came to DRBC and charged us
with putting together an interstate flood mitigation task force
to look at it holistically, knowing when they stood on one
shore of the river, they could not solve the flooding problem.
Two aspects came out of that, one, we had a quite diverse task
force with Federal members, State members, nonprofits, et
cetera came up with 45 recommendations, and then the four
governors prioritized those, and we are working with the
Federal agencies and the States to actually implement those
priorities. One of which is looking across State boundaries on
how DRBC might be able to use our authorities to have an
umbrella water--excuse me, floodplain protection so that it is
uniform on both sides of the river.
The other is, as you know, there is a strong cry for voids
in the New York City reservoirs to catch some of that flood
water. The governors provided us $500,000 and we received
proposals from both Corps of Engineers and USGS to develop a
model on how you can use the reservoirs of the Basin better for
flood mitigation. Well, both those proposals were good. It goes
back to the issue of what models best. We asked USGS and the
Corps to get together in the same room and also include
National Weather Service and see if they could come up with a
proposal that used the best of the three agencies and they did.
And I think we have a much better product because of it and we
are also able to significantly able to leverage the dollars. We
will have had a model this fall and then we will have really
good science basis to evaluate how best we should use the
reservoirs.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, I have another fewer than 40 seconds
left, so let me jump to Mr. Richter and ask in the Hudson
Valley there are a number of environmental organizations and
conservation groups that are looking at acquiring what they
think will become the floodplain should ocean levels rise with
climate change and the Hudson River, of course, is tidal all
the way to Troy, so well past my district. The high tide will
be considerably higher than it is now. Are you aware of or
taking part in any similar----
Mr. Richter. Yes, and it is a very important example of how
we can be proactive in our thinking about how we as a society
are going to adapt to future climate change. Well, climate
change is actually in front of us even today. And it falls in
the category of there are of natures services or what a lot of
the scientists are calling ecosystem services. So to
recognize--the thing of a comprehensive watershed planning
approach can enable us to do is to identify where there are
areas in the watershed that need to be protected or reserved to
provide the natural function of the storing flood waters.
Where are the parts of the watershed that need to be
protected so that they can naturally recharge groundwater
aquifers. In some cases, we have to undo some of the
development that may have been done previously in order to
regain some of those services, but that is very much along the
lines of this comprehensive watershed planning that we have
been talking about today is being able to recognize what are
the healthy, natural functions of watersheds and trying to work
with those to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Hall. And if I may ask one more question, Mr. Chairman,
of Dr. Galloway, perhaps as some of other witnesses have
noticed watersheds don't respect human boundaries and they do
cross over State lines as Mr. Richter said, we may have to find
a balance between undoing some of the development that is
already done to get rid of impervious surfaces and restore
recharge areas and retention areas, grasslands, wetlands,
forest lands that may have disappeared. Parts of my district,
that would be impossible. Some parts are Orange County, in
particular, has mostly undeveloped land area and has a lot of
options open to them. And I am happy to say that the local and
county governments are taking a very proactive and highly
forward looking approach to this. And they have an opportunity
to do things right. So the question is, is there a middle
ground that could be effectively reached between the old way of
flood control and the new?
Mr. Galloway. Most certainly. I am a 20-year resident of
Orange County, so I appreciate what you are talking about and
the challenges you face. There has been development, some of it
was wise, some of it was not wise. And I think you have to
examine each and every case, but more important than thing else
is to recognize the new paradigm and from now on, not move
against the direction you want to go, not allow things to be
built where you already recognize that if they are built, they
are going to be problems for you. And I think that again, in
New York State, there is such development in the lower part of
the State that is going to be difficult to move everything out
of the way of the rivers. Capture what you can and certainly as
you go north in Orange County north, there are opportunities
that are certainly available.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. We don't have any new questions,
but I want to wrap up based on some of the testimony that we
have heard here today. And in particular getting back to the
structure of the Corps in terms of the project driven
appropriations process, in terms of the cost share requirements
for planning, the sort of lack of incentives involved in that
process.
I guess my question to really any of the panel, but I want
to start with Mr. Stockton, how do we break out of that
structure? I would like to hear recommendations on how we can
get from where we are to more comprehensive planning, more
collaboration between Federal agencies and there and are there
some State models out there that we should be looking at. Mr.
Stockton, we will start with you.
Mr. Stockton. First of all going back to what Dr. Galloway
said, we as a Nation back in the last century, really, did some
innovative work in the Tennessee Valley and the Columbia River
Basin and Missouri River Basin, and I think we cannot forget
that. So we have a history of doing this, we just kind of
forgot about doing it recently. And I think if I had to make
one recommendation, it would be we need to incentivize the
States in helping them do their watershed planning. I mean,
Texas is very, very sophisticated. They are kind of our gold
standard, Texas, California, Pennsylvania. There are really a
number of States out there that have really done an incredible
job. And so I think it is not anything new, but I think we do
need to find ways to incentivize watershed planning on a
comprehensive basis and to use that as a criteria for making
Federal investments within a watershed as we go through our
planning process for specific projects. I think we need to find
ways to incentivize that.
Mr. Carnahan. Let me ask you to further elaborate. Can you
give us examples of ways to provide those incentives that you
think would work?
Mr. Stockton. Well, as we go through our planning process
and our budgetary process, I think we could set budgetary
priorities based upon if you had well-defined criteria for the
type of watershed plans that need to be done and it would need
to be defined, because there are a lot of different definitions
out there of what it is. But for those States and watershed
entities that had actually gone through the process, had an
approved plan, they would get priority both within the planning
process and the budgetary process for how we allocate those
scarce Federal dollars and make those Federal investments as a
way to incentivize good behavior.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And I want to open it up to others
on the panel. Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Freedman. Yeah, I want to comment on that with kind of
a general statement, the kind of advice I gave my children
about life and that is that a vision without a plan is just
fantasy and a plan without a vision is just activity. And so we
need kind of both. We need to start at the stakeholder level
and through a multi stakeholder process, we need to develop
this collective vision. And then we need a framework to
implement a plan that is matched to the vision. Otherwise we
can't get where we are going. And that plan you know we have
talked about top down or bottom up, it really starts at both
ends and kind of meets in the middle. The bottom part of it is
the stakeholders, the local people, the local citizens. You
have to identify what their issues and what their priorities
and concerns are, whether it be groundwater or flooding or
water quality or ecological protection. And then you need the
strength and authority at the Federal level to integrate all
the complex partners that you have in this. You know, you have
Federal, State, municipal, tribal, you know, its quite complex.
And the Federal framework needs to have the authority, needs to
have funding and it needs to have some flexibility to make the
right decisions. To focus on priority actions, not just
programmatic activities, little check boxes where you, you
know, you are meeting a particular act.
And sometimes that may mean that you don't spend money in
one area that seems to be the prescriptive approach of a
Federal program, but you reprioritize it in another area.
Because all too often we are spending money on things that
aren't really making a difference in terms of the objectives.
And rather, we need to--combining that vision and that plan
focus on the things that gets you the biggest benefit towards
your vision.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Any others?
Mr. Mullican. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Carnahan. Let me go to Ms. Collier, she had her hand up
first.
Ms. Collier. Thank you very much. I just want to mention
that when we did our resource plan in 2004, we had about 48
different organizations represented at seven Federal agencies.
We did this primarily within internal staff. I have a staff
between 40 and 45, depending on how finances are, plus
receiving a grant from a local philanthropic foundation to get
a facilitator. But what is critical is there is an
implementation phase afterwards. That is where having the
Federal agencies as part of this plan is really critical.
Because then we can sit down with them and carve out parts.
You know, what is it that the Corps can pick up the ball
and lead with this. In fact, we were lucky enough to be one of
the partners with the Corps on the pilot watershed studies in
2006. It was really based on priority needs identified in the
plan. So it is financial incentives to do the plan, but then
also as Mr. Stockton said have some carrot out there that if
you do the plan according to key directions and priorities then
you get a jump on the Federal agency funds.
Mr. Carnahan. Mr. Mullican.
Mr. Mullican. The Texas model also integrates into some
incentives just as you asked about. And I thought I would just
share with you our experience and the success that has had. In
1997 when Senate bill 1 passed, there were these two provisions
that really did not get a lot of attention. One was if you want
to come to the State for a water route permit for a project, it
has to be in the plan.
Second one is if you want to come to the State for
financing for a water supply project, it has to be in the plan.
And nobody paid much attention to it until 5 years later when
the first State water plan came out under those provisions. And
then all of a sudden, we had cities coming to the State for
financing for water right permits and they realized that they
had not participated in the planning process, and therefore the
project that they were wanting to get financing or permitting
for was not in the plan.
Well, why was that important? Because the plan was a
comprehensive integrated plan that insured that there was not
any overallocation of resources and that the decisions that
were made or the strategies and projects had been vetted in a
very public process.
So now that we have gone through the second round of that
planning process, we have matured tremendously and the process
has matured such that now all the municipalities are very aware
of this requirement so that they are very active in
participating in the planning process. And so what we have now
is a situation where, for example, in July next month, we will
be having our second round of applications coming in for water
supply projects in this planning process. We have about
somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 million available to
allocate for financing those projects. And we are already
anticipating of eligible projects from this planning effort
that we are going to get over a billion dollars of
applications.
So what happens then? Well as part of the law also since
Senate bill 1 has passed, there have been additional
provisions. For example, good water conservation plans, you
have to have that as part of your application process. You can
not come to the State for financing if you do not have a water
conservation plan and are in the process of implementing that
conservation plan. You have to have water loss audits, you have
to submit those water loss audits in order to be able to get
financing from the State.
So we have put in place a series of, call them carrots,
call them sticks or whatever you want to call them. But we have
put in place a process that incentivizes participation in the
stakeholder-driven process that is done in a holistic,
comprehensive manner such that in the end of projects that
participated in that are the ones that are getting the
advantages of the financing and permitting to move those
projects forward to implementation.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you again. Anybody else. Mr. Larson?
Mr. Larson. What was described in Texas is also being used,
for example, in California, their water resources projects and
activities priorities are based on a check list. And the check
list includes how many multiple objectives that particular
activity is addressing. So if it is a single purpose activity,
it is seldom going to get funded. FEMA does the same kind of
things, for example, in its hazard mitigation projects that it
funds under post disaster mitigation activities. Unless a
community has a comprehensive community plan for hazard
mitigation, it is not eligible for those kinds of funding. So
these kinds of incentives, disincentives are critical. You can
build in added incentives, for example, to say that activities
must make sure that projects not adversely impacts other
communities and other people now, but also in the future based
on future conditions that we know are going to occur in terms
of watershed development, in terms of climate change and those
kinds of things. That goes for urban flood protection as well
as water quality and quantity issues throughout the watershed.
So all of those things are important to moving us in that
direction.
Mr. Carnahan. I thank all of you again. And on behalf of
Chairwoman Johnson, I thank you for your time, your expertise
that you share with us today. And the Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277.089