field hearing

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 36–164PDF 2019

S. HRG. 116–13

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ MANAGEMENT OF

THE 2019 MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FLOODING

FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

April 17, 2019

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

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

VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Aug 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36164.TXT VERNE

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota MIKE BRAUN, Indiana MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ROGER WICKER, Mississippi RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama JONI ERNST, Iowa

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, -Ranking Member

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director


(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

April 17, 2019

OPENING STATEMENTS

Ernst, Hon. Joni, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ........................................ 2 Grassley, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................. 11 Moran, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ................................ 14 Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 40

WITNESSES

Spellmon, Major General, Scott, Deputy Commanding General, Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) ............ 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 Remus, John, Cheif, Missouri River Basin Water Management Division, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) ............................................................. 24 Crain, Cathy, Mayor, City of Hamburg, Iowa ....................................................... 74

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 Ettleman, Leo, Farmer & Community Advocate Fremont County, Iowa ........... 82

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 Euler, Joel, Attorney, Doniphan County, Kansas ................................................. 88

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123 Hurst, Blake, Family Farmer, Tarkio, Missouri ................................................... 122

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 134

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements: Bill Jackson, Marshall, Missouri ..................................................................... 154 Carol Munson Ross, Brunswick, Missouri ...................................................... 155 David Nail, Concerned Farmer ....................................................................... 156 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri Basin Water Management .......... 157 Dan Delich and Larry J. Praher, Floodplain Alliance for Insurance Re-

form (FAIR) ................................................................................................... 160 Senator Josh D. Hawley (R-MO) ..................................................................... 165 Mike Naig, Secretary of Agriculture, Iowa Department of Agriculture

& Land Stewardship ..................................................................................... 166 Paul Lepisto, Izaak Walton League of America, Missouri River Initiative . 168 Jim Koeller, Upper Mississippi Illinios Missouri River Association

(UMIMRA) ..................................................................................................... 174 Joseph B. Gibbs, Professional Engineer ......................................................... 175 Boyd Nole, President, Kanasas City Industrial Council (KCIC) .................. 176 Larry Frakes, Rushville, Missouri Farmer .................................................... 177 Larry Meyer, Missouri Valley, Iowa Farmer .................................................. 180 Luke Weigel, Missouri River Farmer ............................................................. 181 Max Hockemeier, President, Hsckemeier Seeds Inc ...................................... 182 Mark Scott, President, Missouri Corn Growers Association ......................... 183 Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage District Associa-

tion ................................................................................................................. 185 Michael L. Parson, Missouri Governor ........................................................... 189 Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association ................................................. 191 Rita Utman, Modale, Iowa ............................................................................... 194 Robert Vincze, Flood Control Representative, Missouri River Recovery

Implementation Committee ......................................................................... 195


PageIV

—Continued Shannon Miller ................................................................................................. 196 Virgil and Scott Crockett ................................................................................. 197


(1)

Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Management of the 2019 Missouri River Basin Flooding

WEDNESDAY, April 17, 2019

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC. U.S. SENATE Committee on Environment and Public Works

Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at Our Lady of the Holy

Rosary Cathlic Church, 24116 Marian Avenue, Glenwood, Iowa, Hon. Joni Ernst (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Grassley, Moran, and Gillibrand.


2

VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Aug 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36164.TXT VERNE 3616

4.00

1

SENATOR ERNST: Good morning,

everyone. Make your way to your seats, please.

Good morning.

(Audience says good morning as a

group.)

SENATOR ERNST: I'm going to go ahead

and we have a list of guests that are here as well

that I'd like to recognize this morning before we

get started.

I'm Joni Ernst. I'm the junior senator

from the great state of Iowa.

(Audience clapping.)

SENATOR ERNST: And what I'd like to

do -- hey, good morning, Senator Gillibrand.

I'm going to go ahead and recognize the

elected officials that we have joining us here

today, and I will apologize ahead of time if we miss

someone.

Governor Kim Reynolds will be attending.

She will be a little bit late, but she does intend

to be here this morning.

We have state representative from

House 23, Dave Sieck. Dave is right over here.

Thank you very much.


3


4.00

2

SENATOR ERNST: Mills County Board of

Supervisor Carol Vinton. Thank you, Carol, very

much.

{Audience clapping.)

SENATOR ERNST: Supervisor Richard

Crouch at this time.

And Fremont County Board Supervisor

Dustin Sheldon. I saw Dustin in the back. Thank

you, Dustin.


And our Mills County Emergency Management

Coordinator, Larry Hurst, will be attending. Larry,

I haven't seen him yet this morning. He will be a

little bit late.

We also have the mayor of

Pacific Junction, Andy Young. He will be attending

this morning as well.

We have the mayor of Glenwood, Ron Kahn.

I saw Ron. Yep, Ron's right over here at this time.


SENATOR ERNST: We do have the mayor

of Hamburg, Cathy Crain, and she will be a panelist

this morning. Thanks, Cathy, very much.


SENATOR ERNST: State Senator,

4


4.00

3

District 11, Tom Shipley. All right, thank you,

Tom.


SENATOR ERNST: State Representative

District 16, Mary Ann Hanusa. Thank, Mary Ann.


SENATOR ERNST: And then the Iowa

Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Naig, Mike. Thank

you so much.


SENATOR ERNST: And, again, I

apologize if we have missed anyone. We will go

ahead and get this hearing started.

Good morning, everyone. I'm calling the

hearing to order, and I will start with opening

remarks and then we'll have opening remarks from the

rest of our representatives here.

Today we're holding a hearing to conduct

oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers Management

of the 2019 Missouri River basin flooding, flooding

that has caused at least $1.6 billion in damages in

Iowa.

I want to emphasize that this hearing is

not just in the past tense; this is an ongoing

disaster. People are hurting, the flood waters are

5


4.00

4

still in homes and neighborhoods, and lives have yet

to be rebuilt.

I want to thank Chairman Moroso (phonetic)

and (inaudible) member Harper for recognizing the

importance of this issue, and giving me the

opportunity to chair this guild hearing in Iowa,

just down the road from Montgomery County where I

spent most of my life.

It's one thing to have a hearing on an

important topic like this in D.C., but it's that

much better to be able to bring the hearing to the

people most impacted.

It's nice to see so many familiar faces

here today. Many of you have lived along the

Missouri for most, if not all, of your lives.

You've lived through these devastating flood events,

and want answers from the Corps about how it manages

the river and how it plans to prevent flood events

in the future.

This committee has oversight over much of

the Corps' activities, including flood risk

management and dam operations, and today, Corps

officials will respond to our most pressing

questions.

Having your farmland, homes and businesses

6


4.00

5

flooded out every few years for folks who live in

the vicinity of the Missouri River.

This trend to flood and rebuild, flood an~

rebuild must end. If $1.6 billion plus in damages

is the best the Corps can do in a situation like

this, that's unacceptable. And I know we'll hear

from them today.

I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge our

two Iowa witnesses here today: Hamburg Mayor

Cathy Crain and Fremont County farmer and community

advocate Leo Ettleman. I'd have a hard time pickin~

up any better witnesses to provide their

perspectives on this particular topic.

Both know the rivers as well as anyone an~

have been on the front lines of flood events and

river management issues over the years. The flood

waters in Hamburg still haven't fully receded, and

Mayor Crain has been working around the clock to

help with the recovery effort.

I thank her for being willing to testify

today as her voice is an important one for this

committee and the Corps to hear. And I just spoke

with her a little bit ago and just thanked her for

taking time away from Hamburg. I know how difficult

it is to leave the folks down there and take time

7


4.00

6

out to do this, but it extremely important.

Leo Ettleman is a sixth generation farmer

from Fremont County and has been active in all

things related to the management of the Missouri. I

look forward to hearing their testimony later this

morning.

I also want to acknowledge the state and

local officials in attendance. Thank you all very,

very much for being here.

The conversation we'll have this morning

is only one conversation in a broader dialogue about

solutions that will help Iowans and all folks

impacted in the Midwest. I'm hopeful that we can

learn from today's hearing and that it will shed

light on what those solutions may be.

Now I will turn to Senator Kirsten

Gillibrand of New York. Thank you for taking the

time to be here, Kirsten. Very good friend of mine.

Thank you. We serve together on the EPW Committee,

and we'll start with your opening comments.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you very

much, Madam Chairwoman, for not only requesting this

hearing, but leading it.

I'm pleased to join with my colleagues

today over this very important issue. I want to

8


4.00

7

thank the witnesses for being here, for offering

your testimony and helping us decide how best to

deal with this tragedy.

Before we begin I want to express my

deepest sympathy to all the victims of this

flooding. I know people have lost not just farms

and equipment, livestock, but also loved ones, and

we have to recognize how urgent this issue is.

I know that people in this region have

seen their homes and businesses engulfed by water.

Farmers have lost their livestock and crops, family

farms were completely submerged under water. My

heart goes out to all of you.

We have had similar tragedies and

devastation in my home state. We need to get past

the parts of politics that have come to dominate

Washington, especially around the funding for

communities after disasters.

We need to come together as Americans

first, democrats and republicans, to stand by our

citizens in the greatest time of need, and we have

to invest in the prevention efforts that can make a

difference.

This hearing is a very important step

where we can listen to communities from both sides

9


4.00

8

of the aisles, hear about your experiences during

these floods, and your experiences after the floods.

We must listen to the voices and the needs of

farmers and Iowans, which too often get lost in

Washington politics. And then we need to take your

stories with us back to Washington so congress can

finally get you the resources that you need today sc

everyone can begin to rebuild and prepare for the

next time.

And I say next time because there will be

a next time. There will be more extreme rainfall,

there will be more extreme weather. Climate change

is taking catastrophic events and natural disasters

that used to be rare and making them more common.

We have to be ready to deal with that. Ir.

New York, we used to have hundred-year floods; we'rE

having them every five years. We have to

acknowledge how severe this problem really is, and

that means making sure that Army Corps of Engineers

is doing everything possible to protect all of our

communities.

This flood in particular has made it very

clear that the Army Corps must do better. They are

too slow, too bureaucratic. They don't have enough

monev. We have to fix that. Anvtime a federal

10


4.00

9

budget cuts the Army Corps, what it means is it cuts

their relief when you need it and it cuts the

prevention to prevent it.

We need the Army Corps to build better

flood protections that take into account all current

and future risks, including climate change. We need

to improve how the Army Corps works together with

local communities.

That includes coming up with ways to help

communities maintain levees and other flood control

structures to meet federal standards. We can't just

write this off as a local responsibility because the

federal government ends up footing the bill if there

is no good flood protection in place.

And I think everyone here can agree that

we'd rather pay for good protection on the front end

than pay for disaster assistance after a flood,

after the lives and farms and property have already

been destroyed.

This needs to be a shared responsibility,

and that means you need to have good functioning

partnership between federal, state and local

government. It is congress's job to pay for flood

damage here, and I fully support doing that.

I'm going to fight to make sure you get

11


4.01

0

every dollar you need here in Iowa, just as I will

fight to make sure every American citizen, whether

they live in my state of New York or Puerto Rico or

anywhere in the Midwest gets the disaster funding

they need to.

And congress also has to provide the

Army Corps with enough funding and resources so they

can do their job to keep our community safe. So

with that, I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's

testimony today, and I'll express my deep gratitude

to the chairwoman for holding this hearing.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank. you very much,

Senator Gillibrand.

We'll have Senator Grassley, Senior

Senator from the great state of Iowa. Senator.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I thank. the

committee for holding this hearing, and

Senator Ernst for your chairing it.

The hearing's on oversight of the Corps'

management or mismanagement of the Missouri River

breached levees, spanned hundreds of miles in the

four states including Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska

and Kansas.

It's estimated that the Corps may need

$10 billion to repair the levees. That figure does

12


4.01

1

not include those levees not in the federal program,

nor does it address the need for higher or better

structures.

It took a long time for these communities

to recover from the catastrophic flooding that took

place eight years ago. They may have also suffered

from more minor flooding more frequently since 2007.

It's no wonder that an awful lot of Iowans are

frustrated and feel that they're back at square one

again. Iowans want and deserve answers.

First 1 I haven't heard from any Iowans

about the unresponsive Corps and the lack of

communication with locals about the floods. After

the 2011 floods, some communications were enhanced;

however, we need to find additional ways to

communicate potential flood risk.

Second, for years I have worked with my

downstream Missouri River colleagues to make flood

control the No. 1 priority of the Corps and

management of the river. Protection of the life and

personal property should take precedent over

recreation of recreation and experiments that may or

may not help endangered species and the other five

functioning identified in the Master Manual.

In fact, last year, a federal claims judge

13


4.01

2

ruled in a mass action lawsuit of 372 plaintiffs

from the four states that we're involved with that

the Corps' changes to the river, quote, had the

affect of raising the Missouri River surface

elevations in periods of high flows, end of quote.

The Court found that in 2007, the flooding

has been -- since 2007, the flooding has been among

the worst in the history of the river, and that the

Corps' changes in the base of the river caused or

contributed to the flooding.

The Corps should not do everything -

should do everything that it can to enhance flood

warnings and reduce the possibility of flooding

while working with lawmakers in congress to enact

whatever changes are necessary. It seems to me that

misguided decisions and misplaced priorities have

eclipsed common sense.

A little more Midwestern common sense

might have protected local communities, millions of

bushels of grain and the tens of thousands of acres

of farmland.

The No. 1 priority of the Corps should be

flood control, period. In closing I'm going to

summarize away from a written statement and say that

this is my third trip since the floods to this area.

14


4.01

3

It's also in addition to a meeting I had yesterday

in Missouri Valley with farmers affected, it seems

to me that in every visit, I get this simple

question dealing with a manual on the management of

the Missouri River.

And this is in regard to the people that

lead the Corps at this particular time. This

spreads out over a long period of time, and deals

more with the institutional thinking of the Corps

following law or whatever, court cases are for

whatever, but it seems to me that when I get the

question from the farmers yesterday, and I hope some

of these farmers are here and I hope people from the

Corps can listen greatly to the farmers, what's

wrong with the 2004 manual when 40 years before

that, we don't have the troubles that we have

eA~erienced lately.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you,

Senator Grassley.

Next, we'll have Senator Jerry Moran of

Kansas.

SENATOR MORAN: Senator Ernst, thank

you very much, and thanks to our colleagues for

being here. Thank you to you and Senator Grassley

for hosting this and for inviting me today. I'm

15


4.01

4

honored in joining you to hear what the Corps of

Engineers and our other witnesses have to say with

regard to this flood.

I just visited Northeast Kansas two days

after the flooding occurred. I met with local

officials our state. This is places like Atchison

and Leavenworth, it's the jagged edge of Kansas; and

stood at White Cloud, looked as far as I could see

to the northwest and saw Nebraska under water as far

north as I could see northeast, saw Iowa and

Missouri under water; and we have tremendous

challenges, in particular, in Doniphan County as it

relates to agriculture.

The folks that I visited with, we've been

pretty successful in levying efforts, particularly

the official -- the government levees held. It is

the private levees that failed in some instances,

but in large part, we had success because what we

see every time there's a flood or another disaster

in the Midwest, people rise to the occasion, and

volunteers and others, the Air Wing of the Missouri

National Guard packed sandbags for days in

anticipation of levee breaks.

And I want to thank my fellow Kansans and

folks along the Missouri for their tremendous effort

16


4.01

5

at helping reduce the damages to the themselves and

to their neighbors by their own actions.

But there are significant challenges and

concerns that exist to me from my decisions is this

flood occurred in March. The last large flood we

had in the '90s occurred in July, and we have a lot

of spring rains and snowmelt yet to come.

And the question that I have is what can

be done now between circumstances we find ourselves

in and the waters that are yet to come down the

Missouri River. Can we reduce the damages that we

expect, and already received snowfall in

South Dakota just this week.

So we're pleased to be here and look for

answers to work on behalf of all those who live and

farm along the Missouri River, to see if we can't

make life better, and the occurrences of these

flooding events much less than frequent and much

less damaging.

It is important that the management of the

Missouri River by the Corps is done with interests

of protecting our communities, and the priority is

flood control, that the priority flood control is

there from the beginning. It doesn't only arise

whenever flooding is nearing, but always flood

17


4.01

6

control, protection of life and property is at the

priority of the Corps of Engineers, and we need to

return to the days in which that is the case and not

just when a flood appears to be on the horizon.

In order to make significant improvements

to the flood events from the Missouri, we need to be

committed to long term. If we're going to make real

changes going forward, we got to stay engaged at all

levels. A whole holistic approach to flood risk

management is needed along the basin, and I

particularly would like to visit with the Corps

about the south part of this basin.

The basin plans should have this

mitigation and disaster recovery activities instead

of continuing piecemeal isolated approach. We can

do better for the next time and conserve action

among members of congress, the Northwest division,

the Omaha division, Kansas City division, the office

of management and budget, Corps headquarter and ASA

office is the most important.

And I look forward to working with my

colleagues in the Corps to accomplish that. I'm

anxious to hear what our witnesses have to say,

including the witness we have, Mr. Euler from

Kansas.

18


4.01

7

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for including

me today.

SENATOR ERNST: Yes. Thank you,

Senator Moran. In just a moment, we will hear from

our first panel. We have Major General Scott

Spellman, Deputy Commanding General, Civil and

Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Civil Works.

We also have John Remus joining us today.

He's the Chief Missouri River Basin Water Management

Division. He was Army Corps of Engineers, Civil

Works in Northwestern Division. Thank you both for

joining us this morning.

I do want to remind our witnesses that

your full written testimony will be made part of the

official hearing record. Please, keep your

statements to five minutes so we can have time for

questions.

I do look forward to hearing your

testimony, and we will begin with Major General

Scott Spellman.

And thank you, General. The general did

take time to visit with me in Washington, D.C., sat

down, gave a very thorough presentation, so I thank

you and look forward to your testimony. You may

19


4.01

8

proceed.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Good

morning, ma'am.

Madam Chairwoman and members of the

committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak

with you today about this spring's flooding in the

Missouri River basin.

Again, my name is Major General

Scott Spellmon. I'm the Corps' Deputy Commanding

General for civil works and emergency operations

headquartered in 1-iashington, D.C.

What I want to do is briefly provide you

with a national perspective on this year's flood

season, and then share my -- our initial assessment

on the extensive damages that we've seen on the

Missouri River flooding specifically caused to this

region's levee system.

So I think everyone knows, the Corps works

with other federal agencies and with state and local

authorities to help affected communities in advance

of and during a major flood event.

During this period, the No. 1 priority of

the Corps is to help the affected communities reduce

their flood risk with emphasis always on public

safety. After the flood waters have begun to

20


4.01

9

subside, the Corps is also involved in repair of the

damaged levee systems.

I would first like to acknowledge the

widespread devastation and serious impacts this

spring's Missouri River flooding has created for

many people. The Assistant Secretary of the

armor -- Army for Civil Works, Mr. James, has toured

this region, and just this week I completed my

second visit to the basin to witness these impacts

firsthand.

I will tell you, even beyond

Missouri River basin, this year's flood has been

challenging. At one point, over 300 river gauges

indicates a flood stage at various locations across

the United States.

In the Ohio River Valley, this past fall

and winter were the wettest on record in over

124 years, and our Great Lakes and Ohio River

Division have been in a flood fight for over a

hundred days.

Our Corps Districts and Mississippi Valley

Division have been flooding on the lower Mississippi

River now for 160 days, as they work to pass a

top-three flood event for this part of the basin.

In North Dakota, where our chief of

21


4.02

0

engineers visited yesterday, the Red River to the

north is currently in flood stages downstream in

Fargo.

In Colorado and California, we are seeing

near record amounts of snowpack in the mountains.

Additionally, I'll tell you this:

Significant weather systems have been coming on

shore on the West Coast causing major flooding north

of San Francisco, as well as in Oregon where we will

travel tonight to visit the communities and hear

from our team out in the Willamette River Valley

just south of Portland. In many of these

watersheds, our Corps dams and reservoirs have been

able to hold back enough water to prevent

significant flooding downstream.

On the Missouri River, the flood that

began on March 13th, was triggered by a bombogenesis

or a bomb cyclone rain event, which brought a

significant amount of rain and warmer temperatures

to the region.

This combination quickly melted the

Plain's snowpack resulting in rapid runoff and ice

jams. This led to record discharges on a number of

tributaries of the Missouri River, many of which

feed into the river below our reservoir system.

22


4.02

1

These rivers rose quickly to flood stage,

in some cases within the 24 to 48 hours. These

conditions were much different than the basin

experienced during the 2011 flood event.

The day after the storm, we dispatched

liaison teams to local levee districts to assist

with the flood fight. These teams shared tecru1ical

expertise and provided supplies such as sandbags,

water pumps and flood barriers.

The ability of these teams to provide

assistance during the flood reflects the strong

relationship that the Corps maintains and has

developed with local levee districts and emergency

managers.

The damage to the levees in the region is

extensive. Many levees along the entire reach from

Council Bluffs all the way down to Kansas City

overtopped during this flood. At least 32 levee

systems were completely under water, and at our last

count as of this morning, we have over 114 breaches

in those levees.

Many other levees were damaged, some of

them severely. Appears that the levees held firm

until the flood waters rose above the levee crest.

As the flood waters begin to recede, the

23


4.02

2

Corps began to implement temporary measures under

our Public Law 84-99 authority. For example, the

Corps is working to close breaches upstream of the

city of Hamburg, Iowa. We estimate in that breach

alone, it will take nearly 1 million cubic yards of

material to complete the initial emergency closures.

This volume is equivalent to approximately 100,000

dump truck loads of materials.

We're also providing emergency assistance

to the community of Peru, Nebraska, by constructing

a berm around a sewage treatment facility, and to

the communities of Pacific Junction, Glenwood and

Hamburg, Iowa, by providing protection to their

water treatment facilities.

Throughout the flood event, the Corps has

numerous action to include effective communications

with those affected through a variety of forums.

Fortunately over 100 local partners were

participating in a Corps-led flood fight training

event the day before this disaster unfolded.

Starting on March 14th, both the Omaha and

Kansas City district commanders personally engaged

with a variety of stakeholders on a regular basis

including local, state and tribal governments, as

well as with congressional staff to provide updates

24


4.02

3

on flood conditions.

The Corps also began a daily update call

for these groups in the media starting on

March 15th. Daily press releases also kept the

public informed of changes in risk forecast,

including information of any changes in releases

from Gavins Point dam.

Social media platforms, including Facebook

and Twitter, were also used to provide the latest

update to the public.

So in summary, the number one priority of

the Corps in all our operations, in all our projects

remains life and public safety. Our current focus

on this basin remains to protect life and work with

the other federal agencies and state and local

authorities to help these communities recover from

this flood.

And I want to thank you again for the

invitation to join you today, and I look forward to

any questions you may have.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you, General

Spellman.

Next we'll have John Remus. Go ahead,

Mr. Remus.

MR. REMUS: Madam Chairwoman, members

25


4.02

4

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

COMPLETE STATEMENT OF

MAJOR GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON,

DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

AND

JOHN I. REMUS II,

CHIEF OF MISSOURI RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT

BEFORE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ON

THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT OF THE 2019

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FLOODING

APRIL 17, 2019

26


4.02

5

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the March 2019 flooding of the lower Missouri River basin. am Major General Scott Spellman, Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). I am joined by Mr. John Remus, the Chief of our Missouri River Water Management Branch from the USAGE Northwestern Division. We would like to discuss how the Corps operated the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System during this runoff event, and to provide an initial assessment of the extensive damage that the flooding caused to the area's levee systems.

The Corps works with other Federal agencies and with state and local authorities to help affected communities in advance of and during a major flood. During this period. the number one priority of the Corps is to help the affected communities reduce their flood risk, with emphasis on public safety. After the floodwaters have begun to subside, the Corps also is involved in the repair of damage to levee systems.

The Corps would first like to acknowledge the widespread devastation and serious impacts this spring's Missouri River flooding has created for many people throughout the region. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and Corps leadership. have witnessed these impacts firsthand during numerous visits to the basin. Our Corps personnel have been working tirelessly to help reduce the effects of this flood. and to provide assistance to states and local communities.

Beyond the Missouri River basin, this year's flood season has challenged Federal and State agencies and local communities across the Nation. At one point, over 300 river gauges indicated a flood stage somewhere in the Nation, and there were over 183 reported ice jams on rivers across the northern portions of the country. In the Ohio River valley, this past fall and winter were the wettest on record in the past 124 years and we have seen record reservoir levels in our Cumberland River Projects. Our Lakes and River Division has been in flood operations for over 100 days. Our New Orleans. Vicksburg and Memphis Districts have been flood fighting on the Lower Mississippi for the past 160 days. In North Dakota, the Red River of the North is currently in flood stage downstream of Fargo. In Colorado, we are seeing near record amounts of snow pack in the mountains. In California, snowpack exceeds 160% of average in portions of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Additionally, significant weather systems have been coming onshore on the west coast causing major flooding along the Russian River north of San Francisco, as well as in the Willamette and Rogue River basins in Oregon. In many of these watersheds, Corps dams and reservoirs have been able to hold back enough water to prevent significant flooding downstream.

27


4.02

6

On the Missouri River, the flood event that began on March 13 was triggered by a bombogenesis, or "bomb cyclone" rain event, which brought a significant amount of precipitation and warmer temperatures to a large area in central and western Nebraska, southeastern South Dakota, and western Iowa, and a portion of northern Missouri and Kansas. The combination of rainfall and warmer temperatures quickly melted the plains snowpack, and thawed its frozen soils, resulting in rapid runoff and ice jams. This led to record discharges on a number of tributaries of the Missouri River, particularly the lower Platte, Elkhorn, and Niobrara Rivers, and in portions of the main stem of the Missouri River downstream of these tributaries. These rivers rose quickly to flood stage, in some cases within the first 24 hours to 48 hours.

Generally, the Corps operates the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System consistent with eight authorized project purposes- flood control, navigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality, irrigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife. However, flood control is the highest operational priority of the Corps during periods of significant runoff, when loss of life or property from flooding could occur. The Mainstem System includes six large dams: Fort Peck in northeastern Montana; Garrison in central North Dakota; Oahe, Big Bend, and Fort Randall in South Dakota; and Gavins Point along the Nebraska and South Dakota border. Together they comprise the largest reservoir System by storage volume in North America. Nearly all of the storage volume of the system (roughly 99 percent) is in the upper five of these dams. Together, these five upper dams can capture runoff from approximately half of the Missouri River drainage basin. However, they cannot hold back runoff from the rain that falls in the Missouri River watershed below these five dams. That is where most of the rain from the March 2019 storm, which flooded the lower Missouri River basin, fell.

The Corps designed this system of the six main stem reservoirs to capture runoff from mountain and plains snowpack, and rainfall in the upper basin that could otherwise (in the absence of the reservoirs) result in flooding, and then release that water gradually over the year to serve the other seven authorized project purposes. However, the intent is to do this in a way that will also provide the greatest amount of flood risk reduction. The Corps achieves this objective by evacuating all of the water in the flood storage space before the beginning of the next year's runoff season to create the flood storage space need for that next year. The Corps did not design the System to carry over flood water from one year to the next. We operate the six main stem dams as a system, governed by the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, which is the water control plan that guides how rnuch water we will release, and when, and for how long we will release it from the six reservoirs, consistent with the authorized purposes while maintaining compliance with all Federal laws.

28


4.02

7

In large runoff years, such as 2018, or during an extreme hydrologic event, such as last month's bomb cyclone, the flood control objective drives our operational decisions. During average and in below average runoff years, we generally operate the system for flood control and to meet flow targets in the lower river, such as navigation.

During last month's flood event, the Niobrara River, one of the tributary rivers that enters the Missouri River just above the Gavins Point Reservoir, delivered record setting inflows into the Gavins Point reservoir. To provide a sense of scale, at its peak, the Corps estimates that the Niobrara River and its tributaries were sending more than 180,000 cubic feet per second of water into the Gavins Point reservoir- while the typical daily inflow during March is only 4,000 cubic feet per second.

Gavins Point, the southernmost of the six dams of the System, contains less than one percent of the total System flood control storage. Gavins Point has some flood storage space, but is operated primarily as a re-regulation dam to smooth out the power peaking flows from the upstream reservoirs. We estimate that during this flood event the inflows into Gavins Point were over five times the dam's designed flood storage capacity, so these large inflows quickly exceeded the ability to store the runoff, necessitating increased releases to prevent water from spilling over the spillway gates.

We were, however, able to use the storage from the other five dams to mitigate some of this flood event. On March 13, during the time that the Niobrara River basin was peaking, the Corps shut down releases from Fort Randall Dam, which is the main stem dam that is immediately upstream of Gavins Point. By essentially impounding all of the water from the upper Missouri River basin during the worst of the flood, we were able to use all of the available space in Gavins Point reservoir to reduce the releases from Gavins Point dam to downstream areas at the peak of the flood.

During the March 2019 flood, several of the tributary rivers that join the Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam, including the James (in South Dakota), Vermillion, Big Sioux, Floyd, Elkhorn, Papillion, and Platte Rivers, contributed significantly to downstream Missouri River stages. Gage data show that many of the levees, in portions of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, overtopped before any of the increased releases from Gavins Point Dam reached these levees. These levees were overwhelmed by the record inflows, caused solely from runoff from these tributaries, which flow into the Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam.

As I have said, because of hydrologic conditions in the lower Missouri River basin since March of 2018, our operational decisions on the six main stem dams have been driven by life safety and loss of property concerns. During this critical period, our principal and

29


4.02

8

sole focus has been on the flood control purpose of the system. For example, considerations related to the endangered and threatened fish and birds of the main stem did not influence our reservoir operations during this flood event.

The day after the storm, we dispatched liaison teams to local levee districts to assist with the flood fight. These teams shared technical expertise and provided supplies such

as sandbags, water pumps, and flood barriers. The ability of these teams to provide

assistance during the flood reflects the strong working relationships that the Corps has developed across the country with local levee districts, county, state, and local

emergency managers. Fortunately, over one hundred of these Corps partners were participating in Corps-led flood fight training the day before the disaster unfolded.

The damage to levees in the region is extensive. Across a large area, extending

roughly from near Omaha, Nebraska, to near Kansas City, Missouri, many levees

overtopped during the flood. At least 32 levee systems were overtopped or completely under water and, at last count, the Corps had discovered 114 breach sites in these systems. Many other levees were damaged, some of them severely. It appears that

many of the levees held firm until flood waters rose above the levee crests. In other

cases, it is more difficult to say when the failures occurred, since the flood waters themselves often prevented inspectors from witnessing levee failures.

As the flood waters recede, the Corps has begun to implement temporary measures

under our Public Law 84-99 program authority. For example, the Corps is working to close two breaches upstream of the city of Hamburg, Iowa. It will require nearly one

million cubic yards of material to complete emergency, initial closures. This is equivalent to 100,000 dump truck loads of material. The Corps is also providing emergency assistance to the community of Peru, Nebraska, by constructing a berm around a sewage treatment facility in the floodplain; and to the communities of Pacific

Junction and Glenwood, Iowa, by providing protection to a water treatment facility in the

floodplain.

The Corps took specific actions to ensure effective communication with those affected by the flood in an open and transparent manner through a variety of forums. Starting on

March 14, the Omaha and Kansas City District Commanders personally engaged daily the local levee districts, the state and local governments, and tribal governments to

provide updates on flood conditions. Our Liaison officers are also embedded with the

FEMA Region Joint Field Offices in Nebraska and Iowa. Daily press releases kept the public informed of changes in risk forecasts, including information on any changes in

releases from Gavins Point Dam. Social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter were used to provide the latest updates to the public as well.

30


4.02

9

In summary, the number one priority of the Corps in its operations is life and public safety. Our current focus remains to protect life, and work with the other Federal agencies and state and local authorities to help these communities recover from this flood.

31


4.03

0

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to

speak to you today. I'm John Remus, chief of the

Missouri River Basin Water Management Division in

the Northwest -- in the Corps' Northwestern

Division.

Today I want to share briefly how the

Corps operates the Missouri River Main Stem System

and our specific actions to reduce flooding during

the spring flood.

Generally the Corps operates the

Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System consistent

with the eight authorized purposes: Flood control,

navigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality,

irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife; however,

flood control is the highest operational priority of

the Corps of Engineers during periods of significant

runoff when loss of life or property from flooding

could occur.

The main stem system includes six large

stem dams -- large dams: Fort Peck in Montana,

Garrison in Central North Dakota, Oahe, Big Bend and

Fort Randall in South Dakota and Gavins Point along

the Nebraska/South Dakota border.

These dams can capture runoff from

approximately half of the Missouri River drainage

32


4.03

1

basin; however, they cannot hold back runoff that

occurs below the dams.

The Corps designed this reservoir system

to capture runoff from mountain and Plains snowpack,

and rainfall in the upper basin, and then release

that water gradually over the year to serve the

other authorized purposes.

The intent to release water in a way that

is also -- that will also provide a greatest amount

of flood control reduction -- flood risk reduction,

excuse me.

To achieve this objective, we must

evacuate all of the water in the designated flood

storage space before the beginning of the next

runoff season to create the space needed for the

following year.

We operate the dams as a system governed

by the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual.

The manual includes a water control plan that guides

how much water we release and when to serve all

authorized purposes, while also maintaining

compliance with other federal laws.

In large runoff years, such as 2018, or

during an extreme hydrologic event, such as the last

month's cyclone, the flood control objective drives

33


4.03

2

our operational decisions. During average and below

run-off years, we generally operate the system for

flood control and to meet targets in the lower river

for other purposes such as navigation.

During last month's event, the Niobrara

River, one of the tributaries that enters the

Missouri River just above Gavins Point Dam delivered

record setting inflows into the Gavins Point

Reservoir. To provide a sense of scale, at its

peak, we estimate that the Niobrara River was

sending more than 180,000 cubic feet per second of

water into the Gavins Point Reservoir.

In contrast, the typical daily inflow

during March for this reservoir is only 4,000 cubic

feet per second. Gavins Point Reservoir, the

southernmost of the six in the system, contains less

than 1 percent of the total flood control storage in

the system.

While Gavins Point does have some flood

control space, it is operated primarily as a

re-regulation dam to smooth out the hydropower

peaking from the upstream reservoirs. We estimated

that during the flood event, the inflows into

Gavins Point were over five times the dam's flood

then-designed flood control storage. These large

34


4.03

3

inflows quickly exceeded the ability to store the

runoff, necessitating increased releases to prevent

water from spilling over the spillway gates.

We were, however, able to use the storage

from the other upper five dams to mitigate some of

the flood. On March 13th, during the time that

Niobrara River was peaking, the Corps shut down

releases from Fort Randall Dam, the dam immediately

upstream of Gavins Point. Impounding all of the

water in the upper Missouri River basin, we were

able to minimize the necessary releases from

Gavins Point Dam during this peak flood.

During this flood event, several of the

tributary rivers that join in the Missouri River

below Gavins Point Dam contributed significantly to

downstream river stages. Gauge data shows that many

of the levees in portions of Iowa, Nebraska,

Missouri and Kansas overtopped before any of the

increased releases from Gavins Point Dam even

reached these levees.

Since March 2018, our operational

decisions on the six main stem dams in the lower

Missouri River basin have been driven by life safety

and with property loss concerns. During this

critical period, our principal and sole focus has

35


4.03

4

been on flood control purposes of the system.

For example, considerations related to the

endangered and threatened species did not influence

our reservoir operation during this time.

In summary, the Missouri River !'<lain Stem

System has operated its design in accordance with

the master plan. Unfortunately due to the location

and volume of the runoff entering the Missouri River

below our large storage projects, our ability to

store runoff and minimize the impacts to the lower

basin from this flood event were extremely limited.

Thank you and I look forward to answering

any of your questions.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you for your

comments. And we'll begin with a series of rounds

of questions now, and I will go ahead and start

those questions. We'll do five-minute rounds for

each of our Senators, and if we have time, then

we'll do a second round of questioning as well.

So General Spellman, I'll go ahead and

start with you, sir. What laws, regulations,

policies or guidance are preventing the Corps from

doing a better job, especially as you look around

this area of protecting the people of the

Missouri River basin from the flood.

36


4.03

5

What we want to know, are there things

that are preventing you from maybe doing more with

flood protection in this area?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Ma'am, I

wouldn't say there are laws specifically that are

preventing us from from doing more. I'll just go

to Senator Grassley's comment. We feel that we are

in compliance with the Flood Control Act of 1944

where congress told us to do eight things with the

water above and below the federal projects.

And as Mr. Remus said, flood control has

been the No. 1 priority of the Corps for the past

13 months on this basin. So there's nothing that

was going to prevent that. Even if I would just

add, even if flood control were the only authorized

purposes for these six projects and they were all

empty, this event still would have occurred.

As Mr. Remus said in his testimony, the

meteorological event that came in that put water on

top of snow on top of frozen ground quickly went

into the tributaries, and frankly just overwhelmed

the design capacity of the levee system below the

federal project.

So, ma'am, there's nothing preventing from

a legislative standpoint from our operations, nor is

37


4.03

6

there any inhibitions in the Master Manual, any

changes to the Master Manual that would have

prevented this event from occurring.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you. And I

know that you just brought up the Master Manual,

General, so I'll ask Mr. Remus, the Master Manual

which dictates the Corps' management of the Missouri

includes eight of those congressionally-authorized

purposes. You named a number of those, including

flood control, navigation, recreation and fish and

wildlife.

So when making those river management

decisions, does the Corps view these as equally

important? For instance, a lot of concern that I've

heard from a number of the residents in this stretch

of the river is that fish and wildlife seem to have

a higher priority at times than does maybe flood

management.

So could you maybe talk through that

situation? I also heard a comment that when a flood

is imminent, that the flood management takes

priority, but let's talk those eight different

functions and where the priorities are there.

MR. REMUS: Thank you, Senator.

We have eight authorized purposes; we do

38


4.03

7

not have eight priorities. As I said, during high

runoff years like 2018 or the high -- a significant

event like what we just experienced, flood control

is the priority from there.

We are what we call a runoff drainage

system, which means what comes into the system, goes

out. We don't carry flood water over in our flood

zone every year, so we set our releases based on the

runoff, the water we see on the ground.

We had a high runoff year, flood control

has that. We project that, we make a forecast every

month and we try to start evacuating water before

the water gets there in some cases, which is not

this year because the water came very quickly. So

we only -- we have eight authorized purposes, our

priorities are such runoff, and during high runoff

years, flood control is there.

We've been in flood control operations for

the last 13 months; we will probably be in flood

control operations for this entire year and probably

even into the next couple as the system adjusts to

this.

SENATOR ERNST: With those functions,

I know, General Spellman, we talked about these in

my office in Washington, D.C., and it's different

39


4.03

8

functions that we -- you did say that there really

are no priorities with those functions; is that

correct?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Ma'am, that

is correct. We'd like to say that our No. 1

priority is life and public safety, and when we have

these type of hydrologic conditions on the basin,

flood risk is obviously the No. 1 priority.

I would just add to that this basin has

also seen periods of drought. And in those

hydrologic conditions, the life and public safety

turns to water supply. So that's just an example of

how this can turn very, very quickly, and so we saw

that between the years 2011 and 2012, where flood

risk is no longer the priority; it becomes water

supply.

SENATOR ERNST: I do know and this

will go back a number of years to the 2011 flood

event, and I know there's been some concern with

this flood event. Two very different situations or

circumstances, but during that first flood event in

2011 or that one just a few years back, I was

working with Iowa National Guard in this area as a

liaison officer, and so many of the comments we

heard were focused on how (inaudible) and five-leaf

40


4.03

9

clover, and that seemed to be a priority with the

federal government, less on flood control and

management.

So I know some of those concerns have been

echoed with this flood event as well, but

understanding that flood management needs to be a

priority with that.

And my time has expired, so I will turn

next to Senator Gillibrand for her questioning.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you,

Madam Chairwoman.

So I'm somewhat concerned with the

testimony because I've heard a couple of things in

response to Senator Ernst's questions.

First, Major General, you said that even

if the flood -- even if the flood control's in

place, that this event overwhelmed the design

capacity. So you're saying that the design for

flood mitigation and flood protection isn't

adequate.

And you just said, i"lr. Remus, that you

have to accommodate drought as well as floods, so

when I'm looking at your annual runoff from a

Sioux City, Iowa, graph, you've got actual periods

and drought periods. The drought periods are your

41


4.04

0

very light gray and your historic -- those are the

historic drought periods, and then your flooding is

the dark, dark black.

So you can see through the history of this

region that flooding follows droughts, so what I'd

like to know is how come we don't look proactively

and actually change the design strategy?

And given the fact that the last was 2007

and we had the flooding in 2011, why wouldn't we

create a different design that can accommodate this

massive amount of melting and runoff, knowing that

we are now in a cycle where extreme weather is

coming faster and quicker.

And just the facts of what we know, the

impacts of global climate change are so significant

that we see these massive weather events all across

the country. As you just testified, the -- the

flooding's not just in Iowa. It's in California,

it's in Willamette Valley, it's all across the

country.

So perhaps what we really need to do is

have a stronger vision for how we protect our

farmlands and protect our communities from these

massive flooding events, understanding that, yes,

there will be times of drought between them.

42


4.04

1

So specifically, do you think we should

redesign our - our -- our capacity?


MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: So, ma'am, I

would just as a general statement, as we look at

this flood event moving forward, we ought to have

all options on the table. Some of the

recommendations that can further reduce the flood

risk on the lower basin are not new.

I will tell you following the 1993 flood,

the White House established an Interagency Basin

Review Committee, and it reported back to congress

and administration at the time 97 recommendations.

If you recall, the '93 flood was on the

lower Missouri and Mississippi River basin, and

those 97 recommendations were legislative in nature,

there were some for the administration, and then

there were -- for the nine federal agencies that

have floodplain management responsibilities,

recommendations for all of them.

So we think it's time, we're in the early

days of this with General Helmlinger and his team on

the Northwestern Division. We think it's time to

revisit some of these recommendations that have been

brought forward to the basin before.

43


4.04

2

We'll take those to General Semonite and

certainly Assistant Secretary James, and we want to

bring those to the region for consideration again.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Okay. So I

couldn't agree more because people die in these

flood events, they do, and people's livelihoods are

lost. Farmers, they'll go out of business because

they can't recover from these events. And it is -

it's devastating for communities across the country.

And one of the things in your testimony

that equally disturbed me is that the decision was

made at some point to not maintain permanent flood

control structures, that it was going to be

temporary and then took them down because they

didn't meet certification.

So, General Spellman, does the Corps

follow up to build and maintain permanent flood

control structures at locations where you build

emergency protections during the flood? Because it

seems to me that we already know that places are

going to flood.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Ma'am,

that's a great question and thanks for that.

So we're talking about the City of Hamburg

that put up a temporary levee during the 2011 event

44


4.04

3

that withheld that particular storm and then was

taken down.

There I would just start out by telling

you there are many Hamburgs, situations like that

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Across the

country.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: -- across

the country.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I understand

that.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: It's not

just here. So I'll start out by telling you that

the nation has a $98 million backlog of water

resources infrastructure, about a third of that is

in flood risk projects.

I want to thank congress. Congress is

helping immensely. We've had two record civil works

appropriations for the court in '18 and '19, and we

had a record Storm Supplemental Bipartisan Budget

Act of '18. That is going a long way to helping us

get after that backlog.

And it's not just dollars. Congress has

authorized us some specific tools to help

communities like Hamburg, and I'll refer to the

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.

45


4.04

4

Specifically on Hamburg, yes, we do. We

did a -- federal regulations and federal law require

temporary levees to come down. A temporary levee is

temporary.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you.

General Spellmon. My time is expired. I just want

to make a point.

This is not new. Our communities have

been suffering for a very long time. And global

climate change is not only real, but it is urgent

and it is creating crises across the country, and so

I just want to be on the record that when

President Trump cuts the Army Corps budget, as he

did in his last budget, it results in suffering. We

have to take this backlog that you just talked about

seriously, and protect our communities.


SENATOR GRASSLEY: I thank

Senator Gillibrand for bringing up Hamburg. It was

an example that I knew was through some of the Corps

people I talked to a month ago about how he worked

for two or three years to get the Corps to leave

that alone.

I said common sense dictates what

difference does it make to leave it there, and if it

46


4.04

5

had been left there, it would have helped Hamburg to

some extent this time. And so it's just

one example.

Now, you folks from the Corps in front of

us, I want to emphasize that you aren't part of the

problem, there's an institutional problem here, but

you're people in place that can do something about

it right now.

So I'm going to ask my very first question

based upon what I said during my opening statement.

Prior to 2004, the master -- the Master Manual

stated that the No. 1 priority was flood control and

you still say it's the No. 1 priority. I'd like to

have you convince the (inaudible) about that.

Changes to the manual in 2004 changed the

priority of the Corps, and that they must balance

the purposes of the river; however, there has been a

dramatic increase in flood frequency, and the

river's flood carrying capacity has been reduced.

There were not any natural events before

2011 that could have caused these changes. Should

the safe life safety and property be the No. 1

priority of the Corps and the management of the

Missouri River? I know you've said yes. I say that

people have a different concept of that. And if

47


4.04

6

there's other priorities, why? And I guess you

mentioned one, that was drought, but during periods

of drought, we still had floods.

MR. REMUS: Thank you, Senator, and

we -- we -- just so everybody knows, we went through

an extensive process of updating the Master Manual

from 1989 to 2004, and then we looked at a number of

alternatives.

That included more flood control and less

flood control storage, and the analysis indicated

that the flood control storage that we have,

16.3 million acre feed, which has remained the same

since the system filled in 1967, was really kind of

the optimum there.

That's because what comes in, must go out.

So if we created more flood storage, we're still

going to have to let that water out, so that

priority has never changed, or that -- the way we

operate for flood control has never changed from one

Master Manual to the other.

As General Spellman said earlier, there

was no -- no Master Manual we've ever had on any

operations from our projects that could have

prevented this particular flood.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: What about

48


4.04

7

evidence of endangered species that's come into it

recently?

MR. REMUS: We have the -- we must

comply with all of the laws -- the federal laws,

including the Endangered Species Act, and those

actions that we have along the river have you

know, need to take place. They also have to take

place without impacting other project purposes.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: There sure is a

feeling that all of these other things come into

consideration more so than flood control. I want to

ask you what administratively, as opposed to

legislatively, can be done to operate the

Missouri River with the No. 1 priority being flood

control, especially as it relates to these other

considerations beyond the endangered species that

you talk about.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Sir, I will

just reiterate that we have been operating for flood

control for the past 13 months, since March of last

year, and as we've outlined, this event is still

under (inaudible} here on the basin.

If I could just go back to what Mr. Remus

said, if -- if we're -- if you want to create

additional flood space in the projects on the main

49


4.04

8

stem, if you want to create, say, for example,

another 5 million-acre feet of space for flood

control, that's 5 million more acre feet of water

that we have to evacuate every year and put onto the

lower basin, which again increases flood risk.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I will simply stop

by saying the changes to the flood capacity of the

rivers were made to try to help endangered species.

I think that puts animals above people when those

considerations are taken into consideration.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you.

Senator Moran.

SENATOR MORAN: Chairwoman, thank

you. I appreciate you (inaudible) General Spellman

about increased appropriations. I'm a menilier of the

appropriations commit tee. lve work to increase the

circumstances that you have the resources that

better enable you to do your jobs.

We have seen, despite the increase in

federal flood -- excuse me, funds, that money coming

to the lower basin and the projects in the lower

basin is, in my view, lacking. And the issue that

is in response to that issue that's given to me is

cost-benefit analysis. It's perceived that there's

places that the money can be spent that create a

50


4.04

9

greater benefit under that analysis.

But following this event, we anticipate at

least $3 billion in county and damages, hundreds of

thousands of acres lost farm ground, devastated

communities, clearly the need for the benefits of

flood control projects on the lower portion of the

river below Gavins Point is required.

My question is maybe twofold. One, is

there anything that can be done now, in a sense

today, that will affect flooding that will occur as

a result of snow -- snowpack melt and spring rains?

So is where we are today where we will be despite

what we know is going to come in the next several

months?

And then secondly, what are the Northwest

Division's plans for the tributaries in the lower

basin in a more general or longer term plan?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Sir, what

I'll do is I'll start and I'll start talking about

levee -- additional levee repairs, and I'll hand to

Mr. Remus to talk about operations for the coming

snowmelt.

SENATOR MORAN: Thank you.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Sir, as I

mentioned, of the 32 systems between Council Bluffs

51


4.05

0

and Kansas City that overtopped, it created

114 breach locations in those systems. And the cost

to repair those - each of those breach sites is

anywhere from tens of thousands of dollars to tens

of millions of dollars.

Had an opportunity over the last couple of

days to see those. They're - these breaches are

anywhere from several hundred meters wide and in

some cases upwards of 70 feet deep. So we have

enough funding in our flood control and coastal

emergency's account to get started.

We know in the Omaha District of four

immediate repairs that we need to do on the levee

system to stop the inflow from the river to help

evacuate the water that's impounded back out.

And I'm happy to go into more detail with

you on those, but there's four critical ones that we

have to get done now. We let the first contract

today on the first one, and in the coming days we'll

let the remaining four. And so let me - Hr. Remus

just talk about operations.

HR. REHUS: Thank you, Senator.

Just a little bit for the system status.

The Plains snowpack in North Dakota and South Dakota

came off, and that ran into our lower two storage

52


4.05

1

reservoirs, Lake Oahe in Central South Dakota, and

Fort Randall, which is just in the southern part of

South Dakota.

And those reservoirs rose very quickly and

entered what we call the exclusive flood control

zone. The snowstorm we had last week is continuing

to bring some fairly high runoffs into those

reservoirs, so we are to trying to evacuate some

room in there to give us some flexibility to respond

to large rainfall events maybe in the lower basin,

or even in the upper basin.

This mountain snowpack is about average,

just a little bit above average, as we checked in as

of yesterday. We have room in the upper reservoirs.

The mountain snowpack runs into Fort Peck and

Garrison, which are in Montana and North Dakota.

We have plenty of room to capture that and

let it out slowly over the years, so I don't -- I

feel very confident we're not going to have any more

snowpack runoff flooding in the system.

As you know, it rains all over the basin,

and we really need to get some room in those lower

basins so -- or lower reservoirs, so we can respond

to those events as best we can.

SENATOR MORAN: What prevents the

53


4.05

2

Corps from allowing levees to be built where they

should be and not just where they were or are?

NAJOR GENERAL SPELLHON: Sir, so in

all of our levees projects or any flood control

projects, each year the recommendations that we take

to General Semonite and then later to Assistant

Secretary James, we essentially use five criteria

when we write and order the projects that we would

like to see from the new corridor.

No. 1 is always life safety. So there's a

number of dam safety projects that are on that

backlog that I mentioned that we want to always put

to the forefront. That's the first criteria.

The second one, we have legal mandates

that we have to -- that we have to be in compliance

with around the country. Some projects that fall

within the realm of potential national security.

That was always a criteria used. Then we get into

economic and environmental returns, and that might

be the benefit-to-cost ratio that I know all of you

are familiar with.

And, sir, the last one is we always want

to finish what we start. If congress gives us money

to begin a project, we don't want to stop and start

that. We want to get it done and get it completed.

54


4.05

3

So that's the five criteria that our team

uses, when we take our recommendations to the chief

and to the assistant secretary.

SENATOR MORAN: Thank you,

Madam Chairwoman, for that additional conversation.

SENATOR ERNST: We'll do one more

round with our guests from the Corps, and what we'd

like to do is talk about some -- some of what I

witnessed during this flood event as well, and that

was dealing with communication, making sure we have

communication with local officials.

And in meetings that I had with

constituents, especially at the very beginning of

the flood event, I was down in Sydney at the

emergency operation center there right after the

storm came through, and one of the complaints that I

heard from a number of the stakeholders was -- was

about the lack of communication during the initial

period of that flood event.

I know the Corps was flying the levees,

they were doing that, and -- but some of the levees

sponsors said they were relying on private citizens

with drones for up-to-date information about the

breaches and the overtops. So I actually was able

to view some of that footage here in Mills County --

55


4.05

4

or excuse me, Pottawattamie County as well.

So can you explain maybe the Corps'

protocols for communicating with levee sponsors and

those that were actually in harms way.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Yes, ma'am.

The protocol varies. So we have

43 districts and 9 regional commands across the

count1~, and each one is a little bit different, the

protocols, but they generally fall into three

buckets.

In some states, the state prefers that the

Corps district talks directly to the state emergency

operation center, and from that note, information is

disseminated. That's on one extreme. The other

extreme, the expectation is the district talks to

individual levee district owners. fu1d then there's

various ones in between.

So, ma'am, I will tell you, we take this

criticism as constructive and seriously. We heard

this following the 16 inches of rainfall that fell

very rapidly on the city of Houston in 2017. We're

hearing it again on this basin; again, a very rapid

event that was on us.

We can never do this well enough and we

want to get better, so this is something

56


4.05

5

General Helmlinger and I have talked about with

regional commander, along with both district

commanders, and they're going to conduct an

after-action review on how we can do better next

time.

And Joe (inaudible) and (inaudible), we

have all of our regional commanders and all

43 district commanders in Washington, D.C., here in

a couple of weeks, and this is on our agenda to talk

through again, so how do we further improve our

communication protocols.

SENATOR ERNST: I appreciate that

because this -- this event happened so quickly and

we've seen so much damage because there just wasn't

the time to prepare, and then the water just kept

coming.

So communication is key, not only for us

to safeguard property, equipment, but also the lives

of some of the folks. We want to make sure that

everybody is protected, so however we can work on

that, it is absolutely needed, and communication is

key.

And then working further on that question,

about communication and the local governments and

the states, what ability do the states in the region

57


4.05

6

have to take on a larger role in the recovery from

and the prevention of flood events? How can we

partner together to do that?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: That's a

great question, and we do believe that there is a

greater role for states to play in all of this

discussion, so sometimes budget and our practice

drives behavior, right.

So individual projects are funded and then

our Corps district and our project teams deal

directly with levee districts in the implementation

of that project. In many cases, there's not a

clearly defined role for the -- for the state.

But I think the -- what we heard recently

from the governors of Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska,

we welcome that. We welcome that engagement. We

certainly want that energy and that passion, because

that's only going to help us make this system even

better.

SENATOR ERNST: Okay. I do

appreciate that. Representative (inaudible) and I

have been speaking about what is a better way for

(inaudible). Does it need to be a regional

management system? Does it need to still rely on

individual levee managers?

58


4.05

7

What is a better way of working through

these situations? We've heard of some levees that

hold, those that are well maintained, and there may

be others that are more vulnerable, and then how do

we work as a region, the type of damage that we're

seeing in this situation.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: So, ma'am,

we have a very active -- active levee safety program

in the Army Corps of Engineers. Some levee

districts choose to participate in that, where we

team with them on inspections and on recommendations

to further improve the resiliency of that particular

levee system or structure.

And then there are other levee districts

that choose not to participate in that program for

their - for their own reasons.

So I think there was a program out there

that can get after the goals of exactly what you're

describing, ma'am. It's just -- again, it's up to

the local levee districts of whether or not they

would like to participate, but, again, possibly

(inaudible) for states here in this decision.


General Spellman.

Next we'll go to Senator Gillibrand.

59


4.05

8

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you.

So I'm kind of concerned because I've been

hearing -- we had some storms in my state. It was

devastating, children lost their lives. It was a

it was -- it was a heart-wrenching experience for

our state, and I've heard the excuses continuous

since then.

And so for anyone sitting in this

audience, I'm sure you're wondering, you know, these

two men seem extremely sincere, the panel of

senators seem extremely sincere and everybody wants

to stop and fix and make it better the next time.

You said we're gonna do better: next time.

I've heard that for the ten years I've been in the

U.S. Senate. You hear it over and over, and it is

so frustrating to me. So let me explain to us

what's actually going on so you know where the

indifference lies.

So there's this thing, it's called a

ratio, a benefit-to-cost ratio, okay. Let's

understand what's actually happening. This

benefit-to-cost ratio is something that OMB, the

Office of Management and Budget, decides when the

Army Corps says this region has a billion dollars of

backlog of authorized projects, projects that we in

60


4.05

9

congress say this is what our communities need,

authorized projects that don't get funded, and do

you know who doesn't fund them? Of.lB.

Now, OMB decided in 2009 to change the

formula, okay, about which projects get funded based

on cost and benefit. And you know what, I don't

think they're thinking about us when they talk about

the benefit.

They're not actually thinking about the

farms and the ranchers and the families and the

homes and the communities and the people who are

suffering. They're not actually thinking about what

these projects would do to protect people.

So General Spellman, you guys have a

backlog of a billion dollars for authorized but

unfunded projects here locally. These projects, if

constructed, can help mitigate flood damages in

events like this.

Last congress, the senate and the house

pushed for more transparency to this benefit-to-cost

ratio used by the Corps prioritizing these projects.

I am very concerned that after the Corps

prioritizes these projects, the Office of Management

and Budget applies its own cost-benefit analysis

that further restricts the funding of these

61


4.06

0

projects, virtually eliminating your ability to

construct more life-saving initiatives, especially

in rural communities like Iowa.

So my question is could you speak to the

impact that the cost-benefit analysis has on your

ability of the Corps to construct flood protection

projects in rural areas such as this?


~ffiJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: So, ma'am,

I'll just -- I'll quickly reiterate that I've been

in the Army 32 years, I've made recommendations to

senior leaders that have difficult decisions to make

with limited resources. Sometimes your

recommendations are taken, sometimes they are not.

So I understand the position that the

administration is with many competing priorities

across the nation for flood risk management and

other water resources infrastructure.

Again, quickly, the five criteria that we

use when we form our recommendations that we send to

the assistant secretary: No. 1, life safety; No. 2,

legal mandates. There are a number of those

throughout the Corps we have to remain in legal

compliance with.

Some projects have a national security

62


4.06

1

component; we factor that in. Then we look at what

you're referring to, ma'am, as the BCR, the economic

or environmental returns. That's a component.

And last but not least, we always want to

finish what we start. Where congress has given us

money to start a project, we want to finish it.

Ma'am, that's how we put together our

recommendations that we run up to the administration

for adjudication.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Can you identify

any other obstacles beyond funding that congress

should be looking at?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Ma'am, on

funding, congress has been, as I mentioned, very

generous. Record civil works appropriation two

years in a row, would be Fiscal Year '18 and '19,

with the record storm supplemental in between the

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

As I've highlighted earlier, we have a

number of compromises in this levee system, and when

the water is down and we can get out and do the

detailed assessment, ma'am, we will be working with

the chief and the assistant secretary and setting

our estimates of what we will need to repair this

system.

63


4.06

2

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: And what about

the best measures? And I understand you are

responding as quickly as you can to what's actually

occurred, but I'm equally disturbed that we don't

aggressively prevent event impacts.

We know these severe weather events are

going to happen over and over again, so what can we

do? What impediments do you have to actually -- if

we'd done a permanent levee, if we'd chosen to do a

permanent levee here in Iowa, we might have

prevented the loss in this instance.

How long does it take to get approvals to

do a permanent levee? Could you have not done it

more quickly? You said you were working on and

planning for this over 18 months, so couldn't we

have done that in that amount of time?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Ma'am,

absolutely. It's all a function of where you get

funds to move forward on projects. Yes, we can do

this more quickly, but, again, I'll just go back

I don't want to make the backlog an excuse, it's

just a fact that we are working our way through a

lot of very important projects around the nation.


Senator Gillibrand. I'm going to take time, I am

64


4.06

3

the chairwoman, so I just want to make an editorial

comment.

The BCR is established by the office of

management and budget. It is not established by the

Corps.

And we saw devastating floods in Eastern

Iowa in 2008 as well, and the Cedar Rapids flood

mitigation project there took us ten years to fund

because they did not have a high enough BCR.

So -- so --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: That's right.

SENATOR ERNST: Yes. And what we

see, a large part of that funding formula is based

upon property values, and so you will look at our

east and west coasts, and they typically get their

projects funded more so than what you will find in

the Midwest because their property values are so

much higher than what we have here.

So this is a battle we have been fighting

for a numbers of years. We did finally get the

funding for Cedar Rapids. Senator Grassley and I

worked very heavily on that project this past year,

but it is something that we need to address.

That BCR comes in in between the Midwest

and so many of the very vitally important projects

65


4.06

4

that we have. So we should be able to work on this.

I think we're all in agreement here at this table.

So Senator Grassley.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I want to follow

up where Senator Gillibrand left off about the

comments about OMB and cost-benefit analysis. We

need to continue to work on this through the state

of Iowa.

Since the states are interested in taking

a more active role in, pardon me, to rebuild these

levees stronger and better, what types of

coordination such as engineering or permits can we

start working on today to be prepared to rebuild

these levees since we have to cooperate?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Yes, sir, so

I will tell you, both the Omaha and Kansas City

districts are already receiving from the levee

sponsors their project information reports that

outline the extent of damages, and then we will work

through those levee sponsors to get our team to help

in the field to help definitize those estimates of

what we would need to repair. That is already

happening, sir.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: What are the

Corps' -- what has the Corps done since the

66


4.06

5

2011 floods to improve flood risk management? And

are there things the Corps intended to do, but

hasn't had a chance to get done yet?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLf<lON: Yes, sir.

So following the 2011 flood, that was the -- that

was the third iteration where Corps leadership

attempted to resurrect some of the

97 recommendations following the '93 flood.

And, sir, that's the conversation that we

would like to have within the Corps and within the

region again.

The solutions to further reduce flood risk

on the upper basin and lower basin are not new.

They're on the books. It's simply a matter of

getting alignment with the competing interests on

the upper basin and lower basin, industry, 29 tribes

and everyone else that has a stake in water on this

basin.

So, sir, that's the conversation that we

want to start again. As I mentioned earlier, we

welcome your energy and your passion, as well as

those that we're seeing from some of the governors

to get after this issue.

SENATOR GRASSLEY:

conversation within the Corps.

We want that

I hope you'll

67


4.06

6

include congress in that as well.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Yes, sir.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Are there -- now,

this is an opportunity to say if you've done

anything wrong. Are there things the Corps has done

since the 2011 floods that have been harmful to the

flood risk management, and if so, what? What and

why?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Yeah, sir,

sir, I think I would go back to the point on

communication. We heard this, as I mentioned,

following the 16 inches of rainfall that fell

rapidly on the city of Houston in 2017. We heard

the issue of communication following the 2011 flood,

and here we are again in 2019 hearing some of the

same concerns from our -- from our stakeholders.

So we will -- we're going to take that

back again to further improve and look at our

protocols and see where we can improve to ensure

that we are effectively communicating with all our

stakeholders on the basin.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Thank you.

SENATOR MORAN: General Spellman

thank you, Chairwomen.

General Spellman, on the topic of

68


4.06

7

cost-benefit ratio, I agree with the challenges that

were outlined and what happens when OMB analyzes

projects that occurs, so I tried to point out in my

lower basin, were not getting the dollars as the

analysis occurs, the priorities are elsewhere, but

now that we have this flood damage, how will the CBR

analysis apply to the restoration of the structures

from this flood?

Will there be a problem in restoring what

we have as a result of the cost-benefit ratio?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Sir, for all

the repairs, we will have to go back to the

administration with a benefit-to-cost ratio, so that

will be part of the analysis that we will -- that we

will take forward as we look at the cost of these

repairs and the order in which we do them, yes, sir.

SENATOR MORAN: Will you turn -- I

raised this topic with you, General Spellman, before

the hearing began. I drove up from Manhattan

yesterday. I had a town hall meeting in Marysville,

Marshall County, Kansas, the last county before you

cross into Nebraska, and I was not expecting the

conversation about flood damage that far from the

Missouri River, but it was a significant topic of

conversation.

69


4.06

8

The issue is the Blue River. The Blue

starts in the middle of Nebraska and comes down,

connects at about Manhattan, Kansas, with the

Kansas River, which then flows into the Missouri,

and on that river basin is the Tuttle Creek

Reservoir.

And the issue here is that water is not

being let out of the reservoir in a sufficient

fashion to prevent flooding now upstream.

So in -- in keeping water from getting, I

guess, from Kansas to Missouri, water is not being

allowed to flow, and the resulting consequence is

flooding up the basin, to which thousands of acres

are now under water where you wouldn't expect it.

And I would just ask that you would commit

to me to work with the stakeholders and farmers and

landowners in that river basin in Kansas, as well as

those down river as -- and the issue I want to

highlight -- and the reason I want to highlight this

is that this is an issue now that we need to reduce,

not enhance if you can make the right decision about

water flows from Tuttle Creek.

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Yes, sir.

We will -- I'm not familiar with the details, sir,

that you've outlined. We will dig into that.

70


4.06

9

I would just say a flood -- that our

Kansas City district team, there's a series of

18 reservoirs in Kansas that they're responsible

for, and they have been fighting--to use Army

parlance--those reservoirs to keep additional flows

away from the Missouri, but, sir, we'll dig into

that and we'll follow up.

SENATOR MORAN: My point there is a

consequence.

MAJOR GENERAL SPEL~lON: Yes, sir.

SENATOR MORAN: A conversation you

always have with landowners in these circumstances,

why don't we get the water out of the system earlier

prior to flood season? I would like to compliment

the Kansas City folks, they work well with us and

we're very appreciative of that relationship.

MR. REMUS: Thank you.

SENATOR ERNST: Senator Grassley,

follow-up question?

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I had one -- I had

one minute left.

I heard you say the necessity to follow

the law and the Endangered Species Act, but I still

have this question: Taking that into consideration,

have items begun to change the river to help

71


4.07

0

endangered species contributed to flooding in the

lower basin?

TvlAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: So, sir, we

know that we have -- this question is before

Judge Firestone in court of federal claims. We have

an initial ruling on the Ideker litigation where she

has ruled, I believe there were 44 test properties

of the 400-plus in that case.

She has ruled a number of those that are

operations for endangered species has been the

causation of flooding. There have been some that

she's ruled have not been the causation.

So the - where the -- where the

plaintiffs received a favorable ruling, my

understanding is that it will now move into a second

phase of the trial, where she will determine whether

or not there has been a compensable taking by the

federal government of property.

The scope and schedule I understand

have for that second phase, sir, has not yet been

set. We say we don't have a final ruling, nor has

the judge ordered us to, directed us to change any

of our operations in the interim. So we'll get

ready for the second phase of the trial, sir, to

answer your question.

72


4.07

1

SENATOR GRASSLEY: As long as the

judge has made a decision that farmers have been

hurt, why doesn't the government quit fighting it

and just pay up?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Yes.



General Spellman. Thank you very much, Mr. Remus.

Thank you very much for your time today. We

appreciate your time, your comments, your concern.

Obviously this is a very, very difficult issue, and

it is a very personal issue for so many of us that

have lived with this.

So I look forward to the conversations

that you intend to have with various stakeholders.

We do need to talk through this, figure out what is

the proper course of action moving forward, and that

will be a very long-term discussion. So I

appreciate your time and attention this morning.

Right now we will go ahead, we will swap

out our panel and if - again, thank you, gentlemen,

very much for being here today.

If our second panel would come forward,

please, and we'll get situated.

(Second panel is seated.)

73


4.07

2

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you. Go ahead

and be seated. If you'd please be seated.

(Audience discussion

continuing.)

SENATOR ERNST: Okay. Thank you,

everyone. We'll go ahead and start our second

panel. And today we have joining us Cathy Crain.

She is the mayor of Hamburg, Iowa.

We also have Leo Ettleman. Leo is a

farmer and community advocate from Fremont County,

Iowa.

We have Joel Euler, which is an attorney

from Doniphan County, Kansas.

And we also have joining us Blake Hurst,

who is a board member, coalition to protect the

Missouri River, Atchison County, Missouri.

And I do want to thank our witnesses here

today, and I understand that they have been through

some very, very difficult times.

Mayor Crain, I want to commend you for

your leadership. This has been a very difficult

flood event, one that's very different even than

from 2011, and I hope you're able to express not

only to the folks that we have at this table today,

but also for the members of the audience, the

74


4.07

3

difficulties that you have had in leading a

community that has been devastated by flood, not

just once, but many times over in our recent

history.

So we will start with Mayor Crain.

Mayor Crain, your full written testimony will be

made part of the official record for today. And for

all of the panelists, again five minutes for your

opening statements, and then we will have time for

questions.

So Mayor Crain, please, go ahead and

proceed.

MAYOR CRAIN: Fifty-three levee

breaks along the Missouri River, five miles away

stood our five-foot federal levee built to protect

us from Ditch 6. It was not designed to protect us

from the Missouri, because, as it had been said, it

could never happen, but it has happened twice in

eight years.

We didn't have a chance and we knew it.

On March 17th, we needed the 13-foot emergency levee

that kept our town dry in 2011. It held over

12 feet of water for 120 days. But we had to tear

it down when we couldn't raise the $5.6 million

required to meet federal levee certification.

75


4.07

4

We went up the federal ladder asking for

preventive funding. When denied or ignored, we

posted a flash mob video asking Americans for less

than a latte, save a town.

We didn't raise enough, so we were

required to tear down the levee that cost

8.6 million to build, and spend another 675,000 to

remove.

Our fears were realized when over 11 feet

of water captured our town. 169 of 560 homes,

88 percent of our businesses, and two thirds of our

town were under water.

We had evacuated our lowest elevations

earlier, but this time the devastation went where

flood water had never been, and its velocity toppled

a section of the nearly 2-mile HESCO barrier wall we

and the Corps had built for more protection.

It was 3 a.m., when our senior housing was

evacuated. This congenial group that played Bingo

every afternoon at 2 p.m., were wrestled out of bed.

They had cooked their meals, raised their kids 1

helped raise their grandkids, sold their homes and

taken their most favored items to one- and

two-bedroom apartments.

Our volunteer firemen carried them out in

76


4.07

5

their nightgowns and pajamas, leaving their walkers,

scooters, wheelchairs and treasures. It's all in

the curbside waiting for debris pickup. Our people

are scattered amongst their family, friends and

shelters, and are living in their car, and it's

Day 31.

We had no water. We lost the water plant,

wells, the station, natural gas and city equipment,

and immediately we met to plan Hamburg 2.0. All the

while, our people went to work finding and helping

each other, starting a relief center and cooking

meals for the town, while a Unity church service was

organized.

Four of the five churches are under water.

Only the ConAgra plant and our electrician can open.

No restaurant, gas station, hair salon, barber shop,

parts store, drug store, grain elevator, insurance

office, bank, motel or farm implement dealer can

open.

There are no dry buildings for our

businesses to move to. They are under water, and

City Hall is housed at the grade school with laptops

and cell phones.

As our farmers haul water from miles away,

the volunteer fire department pumped water to the

77


4.07

6

water tower and we drilled an emergency water well.

On Day 19 the DNR says we can shower, do

laundry and flush.

Now we talk about rebuilding the levee,

and, once again, we need to sign another contract

with the United States of America for a temporary

levee. All this and we're back where we started.

The only difference is we're destroyed.

1'/e must have a permanent levee solution.

Make flood prevent the No. 1 priority. We never saw

Missouri River water from 1952 until 2011, until the

politics changed.

Two, take a deep dive into your levee

certification laws. Use our local guys to assist.

The system is in desperate need of practicality.

Three, when we asked in 2012 to keep our

levee, there was no -- there was no funding for

prevention. Just emergency. Make one.

Four, change Line 2B in USA's contract for

tearing down emergency levees. Give small towns a

chance to survive. We're the town you want to work

with, we're responsible. 31 days ago, the city owed

$56,000. We have untapped potential, we house the

industry for our county, and are slated for future

growth. We get along with others.

78


4.07

7

In the lawsuit against the Corps, only one

of our farmers participated, and we follow all of

the guidelines with the DOT, the NRCS and the DNR,

and I might add on a daily basis.

We need affordable housing and business

rental space, a fill-in housing program inside city

limits, a 10-acre industrial park with rural water,

the Missouri River levees raised and repaired, the

permanent levee we asked for to protect us, and we

need to see our town whole and growing with our

businesses and our people back home.

But now we're preparing for the predicted

May and June flooding without protection. We want

our town, we want our future in our town with our

businesses back and everybody home again.

together. These people, this community.

We belong

If you

only saw what they are doing to rebuild, you would

be in awe.

We'll continue to do everything we can.

Please, help us to do what we can't. We're worth

it. Get the Senate to say yes to supplemental.


SENATOR ERNST: Next we have Leo

Ettleman, again another partner in the fight against

this flooding. We spent a lot of time together in

79


4.07

8

City of Hamburg 1201 Main Street

P.O. Box 106 Hamburg, Iowa 51640

PH: 712-382-1313 FX: 712-382-1405

Email: cityofhamburg1 [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC WORKS HEARING

Testimony of Cathy E. Crain, Mayor of Hamburg, Iowa

April17, 2019

80


4.07

9

53 levee breaks along the Missouri River 5 miles away stood our Sfoot Federal levee built to protect us from Ditch 6. It was not designed to protect us from the Missouri because, as it had been said, it could never happen. But it has happened. Twice. In 8 years. We didn't have a chance. And we knew it.

On March 17'h we needed the 13-foot emergency levee that kept our town dry in 2011. It held over 12ft of water for 120 days. But we had to tear it down when we couldn't raise the $5.6 million required to meet Federal levee certification. We went up the Federal ladder asking for preventive funding when denied or ignored, we posted a flash mob video asking Americans, "For less than a latte, save a town". We didn't raise enough, so we were required to tear down the levee that cost $8.6 million to build and spent another $675,000 to remove.

Our fears were realized when over 11ft. of water captured our town. 169 of 560 homes, 88% of our businesses and two thirds of our town were underwater. We had evacuated our lowest elevations. But this time the devastation went where flood water had never been and it's velocity toppled a section of the nearly 2mile Hesco barrier wall we'd built for more protection. It was 3:00am when our senior housing was evacuated. This congenial group that played bingo every afternoon at 2:00pm were roused out of bed. They had cooked their meals, raised their children, helped raised their grand kids, sold their homes and taken their most favored items to one and two bedroom apartments. Our volunteer firemen carried them out in their nightgowns and pajamas, leaving their walkers, scooters, wheelchairs and treasures. It's on the curbside waiting for debris pick-up. Our people are

scattered amongst their family, friends and shelters- and it's day 31.

We had no water. We lost the water plant, wells, lift station, natural gas and City equipment. Immediately, we met to plan Hamburg 2.0. All the while our people went to work finding and helping each other, starting a Relief Center and cooking meals for the town while a Unity Church Service was organized. 4 of the 5 churches are underwater.

Only the ConAgra plant and our electrician can open. No restaurant, gas station, hair salon, barbershop, parts store, drug store, grain elevator, insurance office, bank, motel or farm implement dealership can open. There are no dry buildings for our businesses to move too. They're underwater and City Hall is housed at the grade school with laptops and cell phones.

As our farmers haul water from miles away, the volunteer fire department pump water to the tower and we drill an emergency water well. On day 19 the DNR says we can shower, do laundry and flush.

Now we talk about rebuilding the levee and once again, we need to sign another contract with the United States of America for a temporary levee. All this and we're back where we started? The only difference is we're destroyed. We must have a permanent levee solution.

What can you do? Do the right thing.

81


4.08

0

1. Make flood prevention the #1 priority. Recreation and fish must be lower on your list.

We never saw Missouri river water from 1952 until2011, until the politics changed.

2. Take a deep dive into your levee certification laws. Use our local guys to assist. The

system is in desperate need of practicality.

3. When we asked in 2012 to keep our levee, there was no funding for prevention, just

emergency. Make prevention an option.

4. Change line 2d in U.S.A.'s contract for tearing down emergency levees. Give small

town's a chance to survive.

We're the town you want to work with.

We're responsible. 31 days ago, the City owed $56,000.

We have untapped potential. We house the industry for our county and are slated for future

growth.

We get along well with others. In the lawsuit against the USACE, only 1 of our farmers

participated.

We need:

Affordable housing and business rental space

A "Fill In" housing program inside City limits

A 10-acre industrial park with rural water

The Missouri River levees raised and repaired

The permanent levee we asked for to protect us, and

To see our town whole and growing with our businesses and people back

But now, we're preparing for the predicted May and June flooding, without protection.

We want our future in our town with our businesses back and everybody home again. We

belong together. These people. This Community. If you only saw what they are doing tore

build, you would be in awe.

We'll continue to do everything we can. Please help us do what we can't. We're worth it.

82


4.08

1

2011 as well, so, Leo, please proceed.

MR. ETTLEMAN: Thank you, Senator.

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak. I

speak for thousands of stakeholders who have been

affected by the catastrophic flooding caused by

their own government that began in 2007 and

continues due to the adopting of the Missouri River

Recovery Program, MRRP.

In my opinion, the 2019 flooding and all

flooding since 2004 has been caused by the Corps'

change in the way it manages the river pursuant to

the MRRP for the purpose of benefiting the basin

ecosystem and fish and wildlife, while

deprioritizing flood control.

I'm very familiar that the basin has

flooding. I'm a life-long farmer, and president of

Responsible River Management, and member of the

Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee,

and was appointed by General John McMahon to the

Missouri River Flood Task Force following the

2011 flood.

I'm also a plaintiff in the Ideker

versus and others versus USA, the fifth amendment

taking case which seeks just compensation for

damages caused by the Corps' change in the

83


4.08

2

management -- river management policy.

I first will address the Corps' flood risk

management once the 2019 flood levee became

imminent. I will then briefly address the Corps'

change in long-term flood management with the

implementation of the MRRP in 2004 that led to the

2019 flooding, as well as all of the flooding in the

basin since 2004.

During the past flooding -- during the

past (inaudible), the Omaha District of the United

States Corps of Engineers stayed in close

communication with levee sponsors and community

leaders, which played a major role in protecting

human life and limiting property damage; however,

that was not the case in 2019.

That flooding happened quickly and was

essentially without warning to the stakeholders from

the Omaha District. Moreover the information

received was outdated and not reliable.

As a result, stakeholders were not able to

make timely, informed decisions to protect human

life, property such that millions of dollars in

equipment and stored grain were lost, as well as

other private property.

In the future, the Omaha District of the

84


4.08

3

Corps of Engineers must do a much better job of

communicating with stakeholders, levee sponsors, so

as to not unduly endanger human life and property.

The 2000 -- in 2004, the Corps adopted the

Missouri River Recovery Program, which resulted in

significant changes in the overall river management

policy.

I believe those changes to MRRP changed

have played a significant role in causing an

increase in the frequency and severity of flooding

since 2004, including the flood of 2019, flooding

that would not have been as frequent or severe but

for those changes.

As such, the determination of whether the

(inaudible) Risk Management contributed to the cause

of the 2011 flood cannot be done by looking at

2019 alone. The community should view the

2019 flooding and all flooding since 2004 as being a

continuous flooding caused by the Corps'

implementation of the MMRP (sic) .

The Corps' implementation of the MRRP

caused two fundamental changes in how the management

of the river. There were system changes that

changed how the Corps operated the reservoirs

involved (inaudible) the volume and timing of water

85


4.08

4

stored in and releases from the system, and, two,

the BSNP, Bank Stabilization Navigation Program,

changes, that changed how the Corps operated and

maintained the BSNP river control structures

involving the 19 19 wing dikes, a line of wing

dikes to degrade and reestablishing natural chutes.

The system changes affected the volume in

water in the channel. At any given time that had to

be managed, but the BSNP change affected how that

water was managed.

So regardless of whether increase in

volume of water in the channel comes from above or

below the system dams, the Corp's management of the

river with respect to the system for the BSNP plays

a major role in whether that water will result in

flooding and the severity and duration.

The system changes continue to cause

increased flooding because during the years -

flooding since 2004, they led to an increase in the

volume of water in the river's channel at critical

times, generally post-MRRP, to benefit fish and

wildlife.

The Corps began retaining more water in

the system reservoirs earlier in the year, lessening

the available storage that led to water, later

86


4.08

5

releases, greater volume than would have been

necessary without the system changes.

These avoidable releases led directly to

flooding that would not have occurred without system

changes acting in concert with BSNP changes. The

BSNP changes contributed to the cause, increase in

flooding since 2004 because regardless of the source

of the increased volume of water, the channel that

had to be managed by the river control structures,

those changes would have caused -- caused water to

be slowed down and directed into the floodplain

during high water events rather than downstream.

The BSNP changes were intentionally

designed to benefit these basin ecosystem fish and

wildlife by reconnecting the river to the

floodplain, resulting in flooding that would have

not occurred but for those changes.

That is the reverse of what the Corps did

pre-MRRP to provide flood control, disconnecting the

river from the floodplain by directing the water

away from the floodplain, downstream with greater

velocity during high water times.

This committee should look at the role of

both MRRP system and BSNP changes to determine the

role -- the true role of the Corps' changes in the

87


4.08

6

flood risk management under 1'-'JRRP is causing the

flooding since 2004, including 2019.

The implementating (sic) the MRP (sic)

that Corps needs to prioritize flood control and

river management purpose, that MRRP flood control

was given a first priority in the Corps' management

of the river at all times, meaning that they'll make

a decision when operating the system, operating and

maintaining the BSNP, the Corps erred on the side of

flood control, even if it meant predictably harming

other river interests, including those of fish and

wildlife.

This was preemptive prior of flood

control. Post-MRRP, however, the Corps only gives

flood control first priority when flooding

is imminent, a reactive priority of flood control,

which means -- which comes too late to prevent times

of catastrophic flooding that flood the basin for

the last 12 years.

The changes in priorities have been

significant factors causing an increase in the

frequency and severity of the flooding since 2004.

As such, unless the Corps is mandated by congress to

restore the preemptive flood control, the

devastating plagues that flood the basin will

88


4.08

7

continue. Thank you.

Mr. Ettleman.



SENATOR ERNST: Mr. Euler.

MR. EULER: Greetings. My name is

Joel Euler, and I'm an attorney with offices located

in Troy, Kansas. Troy is located ten miles west of

St. Joseph, Missouri.

As part of my general law practice, I

represent six drainage ditches located in Missouri

and Kansas, along the stretch of the river which

begins at the Kansas-Nebraska line, and ends just

north of Atchison, Kansas.

I've assisted these districts with

regulatory, operation and maintenance, flood fight

and related activities, starting with the -- what we

call the Great Flood in 1993, and including the

events of 1998, 2009, 2011 and 2019.

Districts I read are represent are

primarily agricultural in nature; however, two

districts, the Elwood-Gladden Drainage District and

the South St. Joseph Drainage and Levee District are

what I refer to as hybrid or combination districts.

These districts contain agricultural and

89


4.08

8

Testimony Leo Ettleman of Missouri River Basin Stakeholder at April17, 2019, Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and

Public Works on the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Flood Risk Management and Recovery Efforts within the Missouri River Basin as It Pertains to

the March 2019 Flooding Event

I. Introduction

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important matter.

speak not only for my family and myself, but I speak for the thousands of stakeholders

along the Missouri River whose communities and ways of life are literally being sacrificed

by atypical and catastrophic flooding caused by their own Government that began in 2007

and continues due to the U.S.A.C.E. ("Corps") and the Fish and Wildlife Service adopting

the Missouri River Recovery Program ("MRRP") as mandated by Congress. It is my firm

belief that the atypical frequent and severe flooding that began in 2007 and continues was

and is being caused by the government-authorized MRRP actions of the Corps and the Fish

and Wildlife Service in changing the way it manages the Missouri River ("River'') for the

purpose of benefiting the interests of the Missouri River Basin ("Basin") ecosystem and its

fish and wildlife, while deprioritizing flood control for Basin stakeholders.

I am here today as a Basin stakeholder to give testimony concerning the Corps'

flood risk management of the River with respect to the March 2019 flood event that

occurred within the Basin. I am a life-long farmer within the Basin with farming operations

in and around Percival, Iowa. I am the President of Responsible River Management, a

member of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee. I was also appointed

by General John McMahon to the Missouri River Flood Task Force following the 2011

flood. I am also a plaintiff in the Fifth Amendment inverse condemnation taking case of

90


4.08

9

/deker, et aL v. United StaJes pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims which

seeks just compensation for the damages to hundreds of Basin stakeholders caused by the

Corps' paradigmatic change in its River management policies due to the adoption of the

MRRP in 2004.

My testimony will first address the Corps' flood risk management once flooding

was imminent in March, 20 19 and then its changes in flood risk management pursuant to

its adoption and implementation of the MRRP that contributed to the 2019 flooding. This

Committee cannot gain a proper understanding of whether and how the Corps' flood risk

management contributed to cause the 2019 flooding and how such flooding can be

prevented in the future without understanding how the Corps' flood risk management under

the MRRP not only contributed to cause the 2019 flooding, but the ongoing flooding that

started soon after the adoption of the MRRP. The cause of the 2019 flooding cannot be

looked at in isolation. Rather, it must be viewed in the context of the flooding in 2007,

2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013-2018 which are inextricably intertwined and, in my opinion,

as well as the opinions of experts in the field, directly caused by the Corps' adoption and

implementation of the MRRP to benefit the Basin ecosystem and its fish and wildlife.

ll. Corps' Flood Risk Management Once 2019 Flooding Was Imminent

As to the Corps' flood risk management once the 2019 flooding was imminent, I

would point out that during past floods, including the 2011 flood, the Omaha District of

the USACE was very responsive and stayed in close communication with local levee

sponsors and communities. That played a maJor role in not only protecting human life, but

in limiting flood damage to property. However, that was not the case as to the 2019 flood.

91


4.09

0

This flooding event happened quickly and essentially without warning from the Omaha

District. The Omaha District of the USACE provided little communication with local levee

sponsors and officials. Moreover, the information that was received from the Omaha

District of the USACE was outdated by up to 24 hours and was not reliable. As a result,

Basin residents were not able to make timely and informed decisions to protect human life

and property such that millions of dollars of equipment and stored grain were lost as well

as other private property. The Corps must do a better job of communicating with Basin

stakeholders concerning future flooding events so as not to unduly endanger human life

and property.

Also the USGS stream gauge readings and National Weather Service data was not

current or accurate. Actual river crest levels were two, and in some locations, three feet

higher than the information relayed on the NWS web site. This inaccurate information was

consistent from the Omaha gauge through central Missouri. This inaccurate information

gave stakeholders a false sense of security as to evacuation , relocation etc. Levee sponsors

and stakeholders watch these websites numerous times daily during flood events and rely

heavily on them.

m. Corps' Flood Risk Management After the Adoption and Implementation ofthe MRRP in 2004 and the Role It Played in Causing an Increase in the Frequency and Severity of Flooding

In testifYing with respect to the Corps' long-term flood risk management leading up

to the 2019 flooding event, the Corps, and Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004, adopted the

MRRP, as mandated by Congress pursuant to the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and

other acts such as the National Environmental Protection Act, which resulted in significant

92


4.09

1

changes in its overall River management policy to benefit the Basin ecosystem and fish

and wildlife that had suffered under the Corps' pre-MRRP flood control management.1

These MRRP Changes have played a major role in causing all the flooding since 2004,

including 2019, flooding that would not have been as frequent and severe but for those

changes.

The Corps' adoption and implementation of the MRRP caused fundamental changes

in how it managed the River in two respects. First, it changed how the Corps operates the

Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System ("System") dams and reservoirs involving the

storage and release of water in and from the System reservoirs. Second, it changed how it

operates and maintains the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project ("BSNP") river-

control structures. These MRRP System and BSNP Changes have worked to lessen and

deprioritize flood control as the first priority of the Corps' management of the River.

While Mother Nature plays a role in providing water for flooding, the fact is that

the manner in which that water is managed by the Corps plays a major role in whether that

water ultimately results in the type of flooding that has been devastating the Midwest since

the adoption and implementation of the MRRP in 2004. This management consists of

operating the System, pursuant to the Master Water Control Manual, with respectto storing

water in the System reservoirs and releasing water from the System dams. It also consists

1 Prior to using the phrase "flood risk management," the Corps and others, including our Federal Courts, routinely referred to its management in this contesx as "flood control management." In my opinion that this change was not substantive in nature but simply done to gain a psychological advantage in investigations and lawsuits considering whether the Corps' actions had led to increased flooding.

93


4.09

2

of operating and maintaining the BSNP river-control structures to control the velocity and

direction of the water once it enters the River channel from the System releases and the

runoff below the dams. So, regardless of whether the increase in the volume of water in

the River Channel that must be managed by the Corps comes from above or below the

dams, the Corps' flood risk management of the River plays a major role in whether or not

the water in the channel will result in flooding and what the severity and duration of any

such flooding will be. Experts who have investigated and studied the flooding since 2004

have determined that much of the devastation from the flooding that has occurred would

have been avoided if the Corps had not implemented the MRRP System and BSNP

Changes to benefit Basin ecosystem and its fish and wildlife.

Although the System and BSNP Changes are both part of the Corps' adoption and

implementation of the MRRP, as authorized by Congress, the manner in which they

contribute to cause flooding in each of the flood years since 2004 differs mechanically.

The System Changes deal with the volume and timing of water that is released from the

System dams that is then managed by the BSNP river-control structures. MRRP System

Changes have led to a greater volume of water being in the channel of the River at critical

times than otherwise would have been but for those changes resulting in flooding that

would not have occurred otherwise. The BSNP Changes, however, deal with how an

increase in the volume of water in the river channel is managed, regardless of whether that

increase is due to System Changes or increased runoff below the System dams.

The BSNP Changes, including notching wing dikes, purposively allowing wing

dikes to degrade, and re-establishing natural chutes, have resulted in a geomorphological

94


4.09

3

change in the River since 2004 so that the velocity of the channel water during high-water

events is being slowed and directed into the floodplain rather than downstream, as was the

case pre-MRRP. This change is to benefit the Basin ecosystem and create habitat and food

for fish and wildlife which resulted in an increase in the frequency and severity of flooding

in the Basin that would not have occurred otherwise.

IV. Analysis of the Role of Corps' Flood Risk Management in Causing the Flooding Since 2004, Including 2019, Cannot Focus Solely on MRRP System Changes -Must also Analyze Role of MRRP BSNP Changes

Despite the interactive roles of the MRRP System and BSNP Changes in causing

flooding, most of the debate on and the analysis of the Corps' flood risk management

actions in causing the flooding in question has unfortunately centered primarily on the

System Changes, which are codified in the 2004-2006 Master Manual that revised the 1979

Master Manual. In fact, in discussing the 2019 flooding, the Corps predictably appears to

have focused solely on System operations and why those operations alone cannot account

for the 2019 flooding, conveniently choosing to ignore the BSNP Changes which it well

knows plays a significant role in determining whether the MRRP Changes contributed to

cause the 2019 flooding. This approach allows the Corps to stay on message in defending

against claims that its adoption and implementation of the MRRP has led to an atypical

increase in the frequency and severity of flooding. However, it is disingenuous and totally

ignores and distorts the significance of the BSNP Changes in causing such flooding

whether the increase in runoff occurs above or below the System Dams. Studies have

shown that much of the devastation resulting from flooding since 2004 would have been

95


4.09

4

avoided but for the BSNP Changes modifYing the BSNP river-control structures that were

put in place to lessen the flow of water into the floodplain during high-water events.

As a result of the BSNP Changes, the River can no longer handle the same volume

of water. It is indisputable that since the adoption and implementation of the MRRP, the

River now nms slower and rises more quickly, making it much more prone to flooding

especially during the high-water events created by Mother Nature - events that the Corps

knows historically are inevitable and have to be factored in with respect to any flood risk

management decisions it makes. Those events are not the exception- they are the rule in

flood risk management of the River.

Prior to the MRRP, the Corps in making flood risk management decisions

considered and was influenced by what would happen during the high-water events that

routinely occurred in the Basin. As such, when the Corp adopted the MRRP as the

blueprint for flood risk management thereafter, in determining whether the MRRP System

and BSNP Changes would lead to increased flooding, those changes had to be viewed in

the light of what would happen when the inevitable high-water events occurred. It is

nonsense to suggest that although the Corps' calculus of flood risk management pre-MRRP

considered inevitable high-water events, its post-MRRP decisions did not include or should

not have included consideration of such events. So, for the Corps to now act as if this

increase in the frequency and severity of flooding was never contemplated with the

adoption and implementation of the MRRP, is disingenuous and appears to be nothing but

an excuse to defect from the real culprit -the adoption and implementation of the MRRP

96


4.09

5

decreasing the priority given in river management to flood control in order to increase the

priority to be given to the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife.

V. MRRP BSNP Changes Made to Reconnect the River to the Floodplain to Benefit Basin Ecosystem and Fish and Wildlife After the Corps Had Previously Disconnected the River from the Floodplain to Provide Flood Control

As a result ofBSNP Changes, water in high-water events is being directed into the

floodplain rather than downstream. According to the Corps, this directing of the water into

the floodplain, rather than the channel, was purposeful in order to ''re-connect" the River

to the floodplain to benefit the Basin ecosystem and provide food and habitat for fish and

wildlife. This, of course, is exactly the reverse of what the Corps had done under its old

River management policy giving flood control first priority at all times, which was to

"disconnect" the River from the floodplain using the BSNP river control structures to direct

the water downstream at a high velocity. While disconnecting the River from the

floodplain provided for vertical drainage of high volumes of water, favoring flood control,

the reconnection of the River promoted horizontal drainage of high volumes of water into

the floodplain to benefit the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife.

Of special interest with respect to the BSNP Changes is the fact that a

disproportional number of the Corps' modifications to the BSNP river-control structures

are located in the southeast corner of Nebraska, the southwest corner of Iowa and the

Northwest comer of Missouri below Omaha. This would appear to be a de facto seventh

reservoir of the System where the Corps, realizing the inevitable increased flooding that

would be caused by the MRRP Changes and the need to dump the overflows to protect St.

Joseph and Kansas City to the south. In other words, the Corps made a flood risk

97


4.09

6

management decision to sacrifice the property of the stakeholders in that are to bear the

brunt of the damage that would be inevitable due to increased flooding caused by the

MRRP.

VI. Roles of MRRP System and BSNP Changes in Increased Flooding

For each year of flooding since 2004, the degree of contribution of the System and

BSNP Changes in causing the flooding varies depending on where the increase in the Basin

runoff occurred, either above or below the System darns. For example, in 2011, the

significant increase in the volume of water in the channel resulted from runoff above the

darns such that both the System and BSNP Changes played major roles in causing the

flooding. However, in 2019, the increased runoff generally carne below the darns such that

the BSNP Changes played a greater role in causing that flooding, but both the System and

BSNP Changes working in tandem still contributed to cause the flooding.

VII. Corps' Adoption of MRRP Deprioritized Flood Control to Benefit Basin Eeosystem and Fish and Wildlife - a Change from a Pre-Emptive Priority of Flood Control to a Reactive Priority of Flood Control

In order to effectuate the MRRP System and BSNP Changes to benefit the Basin

ecosystem and fish and wildlife, the Corps in adopting the MRRP had to deprioritize flood

controL Before the implementation of the MRRP, flood control was to be given the first

priority in the Corps' management of the River at all times, meaning that, in making

decisions in operating the System and in operating and maintaining the BSNP, the Corps

erred on the side of flood control even if it meant harming other River interests, including

the interests of fish and wildlife. This was a pre-emptive priority of Oood control.

However, after the MRRP was adopted, the Corps only gives flood control first priority

98


4.09

7

when flooding is imminent, a reactive priority of flood control, which comes too late to

prevent the type of catastrophic flooding that has plagued the Basin for the last 12 years.

While this change in flood-control priorities promoted the MRRP purposes, it has been a

significant factor in causing an increase in the frequency and severity of flooding since

2004. Unless the Corps is mandated by Congress to restore the pre-emptive priority of

flood control in its management of the River, the devastating flooding that plagues the

Basin will continue unabated.

Vlll. Where Best Interests of Humans and Fish and Wildli(e Conflict, Human Considerations Must Take Priority

While the Basin stakeholders whose lives are being literally destroyed by

government-induced flooding are not opposed to the Corps making some changes in its

management of the River to benefit the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife, they are

opposed to the Corps forcing them to sacrifice their ways of life and their property to

accomplish that public purpose, especially without any compensation. When the

considerations of human beings and the interests of the Basin ecosystem and fish and

wildlife are in conflict, common sense and logic dictate that the Government should give

priority to the considerations of human beings over the interests of the Basin Ecosystem

and fish and wildlife. However, because the Corps, since the adoption and implementation

of the MRRP, defers to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") in making

decisions of River management and MRRP compliance to benefit fish and wildlife, the

interestsk of human beings have been rendered far less important with the adoption of the

MRRP when in conflict with the interests of fish and wildlife. In fact, just recently, at the

99


4.09

8

urging of the FWS and in furtherance of the MRRP objectives, the Master Manual was

further revised to incorporate the "preferred alternative" championed by FWS that allows

flows of up to 60,000 cfs for the benefit offish and wildlife, which alone will likely lead

to increased flooding by blocking drainage into the River for months. This enhanced

priority for the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife and the enhanced role of the FWS in

the Corps' river management decisions is troubling to the Basin stakeholders when it is

their Government through Congress that has mandated the MRRP since 2004 and continues

to mandate it.

IX. Common Sense and Logie Alone Dictate that the Adoption and Implementation of the MRRP System and BSNP Changes Contributed to Cause the Increase in the Frequency and Severity of Flooding

There have been numerous investigations and studies to determine whether the

Corps' MRRP System and BSNP Changes have contributed to cause the flooding since

2004, both as to severity and frequency. However, even without such investigations and

studies, common sense and logic alone dictate that this is so. Regardless of the various

investigations and studies, the role of the MRRP in causing the 2019 flooding and the

related flooding in flooding since 2004 would seem to me to be obvious under the

circumstances. That is so because the Corps' MRRP System and BSNP Changes to

reconnect the River to the floodplain were a reversal of the very mechanisms that it used

to provide flood control as the number one priority of its management of the River.

Logically, it is natural that a reversal of flood control measures would lead to an

increase in the frequency and severity of flooding. Moreover, once the MRRP Changes

were implemented and the drought ended in 2006, the frequency and severity of flooding

100


4.09

9

did, in fact, start in 2007 and has not stopped since. That cannot be mere coincidence. So,

for the Corps to contend that the MRRP System and BSNP Changes did not contribute to

cause the devastating flooding since 2004 defies common sense and logic.

Almost all of the MRRP changes by the Corps since 2004 were simply to reverse

the very River management mechanisms that the Corps used to provide flood control as

the first priority of its River management policy. The Corps has admitted that the reversal

in the various flood control mechanisms that were employed to disconnect the River from

the floodplain to provide maximum flood control helped to reconnect the River back to the

floodplain to benefit the Basin ecosystem and its fish and wildlife. In fact, the Corps has

admitted that the adoption and implementation of the MRRP was to undo the damage done

to the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife as a result ofits decades of managing the River

to disconnect it from the floodplain to provide maximum flood control to induce people

and businesses to locate and invest in the Basin, which had been mandated by Congress

pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1943 ("FCA") and the Bank and Stabilization Act of

1945. For example, to provide flood control, the Corps removed the natural chutes that

during high-water events directed water into the floodplain. This was done to disconnect

the River from the floodplain. Now, under the MRRP, those chutes are being restored to

reconnect the River to the floodplain. Similarly, the wing dikes were constructed to

disconnect the River from the floodplain by protecting the banks from erosion that allowed

water to flow into the floodplain. Now, under the MRRP, the wing dikes are being notched

or purposively allowed to degrade to help reconnect the River to the floodplain by eroding

the banks. In other words, when Congress mandated a greater priority for benefitting the

101


4.10

0

Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife due to the damage caused by the Corps flood control

efforts, the Corps logically began reversing and dismantling the very management

mechanisms that it had used to make flood control its first river-management priority. This

alone makes it clear that the Corps' MRRP System and BSNP Changes have led to the

increased flooding in question.

It must also be pointed out that at no time has the Corps been able to credibly

establish that any significant climate change is responsible for the increase in flooding and

would have happened regardless of whether the Corps had adopted and implemented the

MRRP. In pending federal inverse condemnation takings actions brought under the

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including in the Ideker case, the Corps has never

presented any credible evidence to show a connection between the increase in flooding and

any climate change. In fact, Government experts in those cases have found not to be

credible as to such a defense. Moreover, even if climate change could be tied to the

increase in flooding that has occurred since the adoption and implementation of the MRRP,

credible experts have found that even factoring in some increase in weather related events

that would cause greater runoffs does not account for the increase in flooding. Rather, they

concluded that even accepting the increase in runoffs due to any climate change, the

flooding would still not have increased as to frequency and severity but for the MRRP

System and BSNP Changes.

In claiming that the MRRP did not cause the increase in flooding, the Corps

necessarily would have to admit to failing to reconnect the River to the floodplain and that

it has failed in its Congressional mandate to give greater priority to repairing the damage

102


4.10

1

caused by flood control to the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife. I have not heard any

such admission. Rather, the Corps has tried to have its cake and eat it too by admitting it

has been successful in reconnecting the River to the floodplain to benefit the Basin

ecosystem and fish and wildlife, but that has played no role in the increased flooding even

though previously it had determined that disconnecting the River from the floodplain was

vital to providing a level a flood protection mandated by the Congress in the FCA and Bank

and Stabilization Act of 1945. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this

is not an argument grounded in common sense and logic, but simply an argument to deflect

any responsibility or liability for causing the increased flooding.

Further proof of the Corps' understanding of what would occur if the MRRP was

implemented can be found in the fact that it appears that the MRRP was a back-door

approach by the Corps to accomplish what it could not achieve by the front door by

exercising it power of eminent domain. In that regard, the law allows the Government to

take private property to accomplish a public purpose such as protecting fish and wildlife

by exercising its power of eminent domain - condemning property through formal legal

proceedings and then justly compensating the private landowner for the property taken.

However, there are times where the Government for one reason or another does not

formally exercise its power of eminent domain, but nonetheless accomplishes its public

purpose by taking private property without just compensation, which is called inverse

condemnation and is what I believed happened here.

Here, when it became clear that the Corps needed to mitigate the ongoing damage

being done to the ecosystem of the Missouri River Basin and its fish and wildlife due to

103


4.10

2

flood control projects, Congress authorized the Willing Sellers Program under the Water

Resources Development Act or WRDA. Under this program, the Corps was to purchase

land for mitigation projects like the MRRP because the Corps, as well as Congress in

authorizing the program, knew that such projects would likely cause damage to private

property along the River due to an increase in the frequency and severity of flooding.

Unfortunately, the Program was a failure due to a lack of willing sellers and a lack of

funding. As a result, the Corps was faced with either not implementing the mitigation

projects to benefit the ecosystem and fish and wildlife or rolling the dice as to flood control

and hoping that the reconnecting of the River to the floodplain would not result in any

increase in the frequency and severity of flooding. Unfortunately, while the Government

and the Corps' gamble of no longer giving frrst priority to flood control in river-

management paid off for fish and wildlife, it predictably inflicted untold damage and

misery to the human beings who live along the Missouri River.

X. Increased Flooding Caused by MRRP Cbanges Is .!:i!!! a Case of Corps Mismanagement, but a Case of a Cbange in River Management Policies

Just as in 20 II, in discussing the Corps' flood risk management as to its role in the

2019 flood, references have been made to its "mismanagement." However, the Corps, in

managing the River since 2004, has dutifully complied with the government-mandated

MRRP River management changes. So, in discussing the Corps' role in causing the 2019

flooding, as well as the related flooding occurring since 2004, it is not a case of the Corps'

mismanagement, mther, it is a case of a change in its management policies pursuant to the

MRRP that was mandated by Congress. And, because the MRRP is still being

104


4.10

3

implemented by the Corps in managing the River, any discussion of its flood risk

management of the River and its effect on flooding for any given year, including 20 19,

must start and end with the MRRP Changes and their impacts on the flooding. The fact is

that unless and until the MRRP policies and flood-control priorities are no longer binding

on the Corps, more of the same devastating flooding experienced in 2011 and 2019 is

inevitable.

XI. By Various Congressional Acts, as Interpreted by Federal Courts, Congress Mandated the Adoption and Implementation by the Corps of the MRRP, and It Alone Can Stop tbe Increased Flooding Caused by It

I, like my friends and neighbors, in the beginning wanted to believe that the

Government is sympathetic to the destruction by flooding that it has forced upon them by

the Corps adopting and implementing the MRRP to benefit the Basin ecosystem and fish

and wildlife and that it is willing to take whatever immediate action is necessary and just

to correct this untenable situation, including compensating them for the damages caused.

However, by the Government and Corps' actions to date, the contrary would seem to be

the case.

The Corps knew or should have known that when it implemented the MRRP

Changes it would be playing Russian roulette with flood control given the inevitability of

high-water events, but it had no choice since it was being mandated by Congress to adopt

and implement the MRRP when the Willing Sellers Program failed. It had to hope that

somehow it could get lucky and avoid the likely catastrophic flooding that would occur

during predictable high-water events initiated by Mother Nature. Unfortunately, the Basin

stakeholders had no effective voice in deciding whether it was okay with them to take this

105


4.10

4

horrible risk and play Russian roulette with their lives. Congress and the Corps made the

decision that would potentially require the Basin stakeholders to sacrifice for the good of

the Basin ecosystem and fish and wildlife - a risk Congress was willing to take, and a risk

the Corps was being forced to take by Congress. Yet, when inevitably this decision by

Congress and the Corps resulted in such sacrifice, there has been no attempt by the

Government to provide the just compensation to which the Basin stakeholders are entitled

for such sacrifice under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Rather, the

Government has fought tooth and nail, using the stakeholders own tax money, to prevent

them from receiving any compensation for the sacrifice that was forced upon them, with

Congress simply standing on the sideline contemplating how this happened and wondering

whether it can somehow act to control the Corps, even though the Corps is an agency of

the Government and Congress mandated the very Corps' actions that are at the heart of this

controversy. Understandably, Basin stakeholders are at a complete loss as to why the

Government is not acting to correct this catastrophic situation when, in fact, it contributed

to cause it.

I will not take the time to chronicle further my frustration with the Corps' refusal to

admit what is obvious from the facts - that in authorizing and implementing the MRRP

and making a change in the way it manages the River contributed to cause the increase in

the frequency and severity of the flooding along the River. I appreciate that there is

pending federal litigation against the United States in which the Corps has been instructed

by the Department of Justice not to make any incriminating statements that would lead to

liability for the property taken by the Government to implement the MRRP to benefit fish

106


4.10

5

and wild life. I will, however, make further comment on the United States Government

failing to act.

The Corps could not have acted to adopt and implement the MRRP without the

authorization of the Government - meaning Congressional authorization. The Corps

simply acted as an agent of Congress in adopting and implementing the MRRP. So, any

blame for the change in Corps flood risk management that led to this manmade flooding

must be placed squarely where it belongs - on Congress. So, as much as I am frustrated

by what the Corps is and is not doing with respect to flood risk management, I am even

more frustrated by what the Congress is and is not doing to fix this problem. The Corps

did not cause this problem, Congress did and it has the responsibility to fix it - not the

Corps.

The catastrophic flooding of 2011 should have been a wakeup call for the Corps'

boss, Congress, to order the Corps to terminate the MRRP or make significant changes in

its MRRP flood risk management to insure that the frequency and severity of flooding is

not increased by the Corps River management policies favoring fish and wildlife over

humans. Yet in the past 8 years, Congress has done little or nothing except to offer prayers

and thoughts, which are appreciated, but won't fix the problem. The prayers and thoughts

of20ll did nothing to reduce the likelihood of the 2019 flooding, the type of flooding that

is going to continue until Congress quits simply talking a good game and does its job to

stop this nightmare.

Congress needs to quit acting as if the Corps does not have a boss and there is

nothing it can do to affect the way the Corps manages the River. The buck in this case

107


4.10

6

stops with the Congress. And, while I appreciate those in Congress who have made real

efforts to make a difference, but failed for a lack of cooperation from others in Congress,

it may be time to elect representatives who will attach the proper importance to this issue

and are willing to expend their political capital to terminate the MRRP or amend it to re-

establish flood control as a pre-emptive priority of the Corps' management of the River.

Another alternative, if the Congress continues to strike out, is to request the President to

step in and order the Corps to make the necessary changes in its river management policies.

I am confident that the President will act swiftly to protect citizens who are the victims of

government action that prioritizes fish and wildlife over human beings.

Dated: April.l!i__, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

h 2-tt14~--Leo Ettleman Missouri River Basin Stakeholder Farmer & Community Advocate Fremont County, Iowa

108

VerD

ate Aug 31 2005

11:05 Aug 08, 2019

Jkt 000000P

O 00000

Frm

00112F

mt 6633

Sfm

t 6633S

:\_EP

W\D

OC

S\36164.T

XT

VE

RN

E

36164.107

National Weather Service Issues two 21 February 2019 06 March 2019

Flood Outlooks" every year

Outlooks consists of a text product, as well as graphics.

Two associated webinar briefings are provided to State and Local officials, congressional staff, FEMA Coast Guard, USACE, USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Guard. (22 Feb and 07 March)

Covers entire Mississippi River drainage North Central River Forecast Center Missouri Basin River Forecast Center Ohio River Forecast Center Arkansas-Red River Forecast Center Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center

21 February 2019 outlook indicated "enhanced" risk over eastern portion of Missouri River basin, and highlighted potential flooding along the James, Vermillion, Little and Big Sioux Rivers. Model runs indicated risk for major at Brownville, St. Joseph, and Glasgow on !he Missouri.

06 March 2019 outlook indicated "greatly enhanced" risk over eastern portion of Missouri River basin, and potential major flooding along James, Vermillion, Little and Big Sioux, North Fork Elkhorn, Wood, Floyd, and Tarkio Rivers. Model runs indicated risk for major at Brownville, Rulo, St Joseph, Atchison, Leavenworth, Sibley, Miami, and Glasgow on the Missouri River.

109

VerD

ate Aug 31 2005

11:05 Aug 08, 2019

Jkt 000000P

O 00000

Frm

00113F

mt 6633

Sfm

t 6633S

:\_EP

W\D

OC

S\36164.T

XT

VE

RN

E

36164.108

James 16,000 3/16

3114

Tarkio 10,000 3/14

0 N

110


4.10

9

0

0 N

CJ 0 0 N

CJ 0> dl

0

"' ~

Ill 0 ~~

" 0>

0 ·;: (!)

0 0. (JJ Ol

(!) Q:

Cl < ~ w

>

0

2/,

0

"' :'2

0 N

:'2

0 ;;;

0 0

"' ~

0 0 0 0 U') ~ ('") N

0

(::J'itW) 133::J 3M::>'it NOI111W

111


4.11

0

STORAGE ACRE FEET (MAF)

112


4.11

1

industrial/commercial and residential interests.

Recent estimates value of the assets protected by

these structures to be in excess of $2.7 billion,

with an estimated input into our economy of

$100 million.

I've been invited to visit with you today

regarding flood risk management and flood recovery

efforts in the Missouri River basin as it pertains

to the 2019 flood event. In that regard, I would

like to speak about four areas which I believe are

directly related to the event in question.

The first one is the Missouri Main Stem

Reservoir Master Control Manual; the second is the

Missouri River Recovery Program; the third is

policies and procedures relating to the repair and

improvement of the existing levee structure, of

existing levee structures; and, fourth, Corps of

Engineers' involvement in the 2019 flood event.

The Missouri River Main Stem System Master

Control Manual governs the retention release of

water in the Missouri River reservoirs. The purpose

for operating the system can be found in

Section 1944 Flood Control Act and are as follows:

Flood control, navigation hydropower, water supply,

fish and wildlife, irrigation, water quality

113


4.11

2

control, and recreation.

The Master Manual is designed to

facilitate the uniform operation of all reservoirs

on the -- Missouri River mainstream (sic). The

Master Manual is necessary as each river has -- as

each reservoir has its own Operations Manual, and

the Master Manual provides for the operation of each

reservoir in conjunction with the other.

The Corps of Engineers retains the

authority to revise the Master Manual pursuant to

Engineering Regulation 1110-2-240, which indicates

that water control plans will be revised as

necessary to conform with changing requirements

resulting from developments in the project area

downstream -- and downstream, improvements in

technology, improved understanding of ecological

response and ecological sustainability, new

legislation, reallocation of storage, and new

regional priorities.

The manual also indicates that the goal

was to maintain flexibility that is required for

effective operation of the system. The

Master Manual also outlines various considerations

taken into account when the control plan is

developed or modified and indicated that input from

114


4.11

3

external agencies, entities and stakeholders which

will be affected will be taken.

Further, the manual indicates that the

projects owned and operated by the Corps will be

developed in concert of all basin interests which

may be impacted or influenced by project regulation.

While there are eight authorized purposes

for operation, there is not any stated

prioritization made between those purposes. As

such, at times there's question among downstream

stakeholders as to the motive for operation of the

system.

I believe it would be wise to prioritize

the eight purposes in a fashion which places

emphasis on flood control and thereafter prioritize

the remaining seven purposes.

This would give certainty to the

stakeholders as relates to the basis for operation

of the system. I believe by doing this, the system

would be operated in a matter which would ensure

that events of the t}~e which have recently occurred

and had occurred in the past would be greatly

reduced.

I also understand that operation in this

fashion may reduce the effectiveness of the system

115


4.11

4

to facilitate the other purposes; however, it would

seem that the resources saved from continual repair

have resulted from high water events could be

diverted to facilitate those other purposes.

The Missouri River Recovery Program is

used by the Corps of Engineers to purchase real

estate which lays between a levee structure and the

banks of the Missouri River. The program was

initially conceived to assist in the protection of

federally listed species, piping plover, interior

least turn and pallid sturgeon and address concerns

which were caused by the Corps of Engineers Bank

Stabilization and Navigation Project.

After acquisition of the real estate, it's

used to create chutes, backwaters, shallow water

habitat, emergent sandbar habitat and cottonwood

management plans to ensure the survival of the

aforementioned species as well as other life-forms

located in the Missouri River basin.

It would appear that an unattended

consequence of the program is that it causes

degradation in the foreshore area. That's the area

between the levee structure of the river bank, which

acts to impede the flow of water during a flood

event.

116


4.11

5

When the levees were initially designed,

the goal was to move the water downstream as quickly

as possible. This was aided by having little or no

substantial impedance in the foreshore area. This

allowed the water to travel at a high rate of speed,

which reduced both flooding and extended flood

events.

The Missouri River Recovery Program has

modified the foreshore area in that it allows growth

of cottonwood trees and underbrush, which is -- and

has created other structures which slow water during

a flood event.

As the water slows, it allows the deposit

of silt, which increases the height of the foreshore

and reduces the protective capability of the levee

structures, in addition, slows the speed with which

the flood water can leave the effected area, thereby

extending the flood fighting efforts and increasing

the chance of a breach or overtop of the levee

structure.

It should be noted that the Corps of

Engineers recently modified the Master Manual to

remove the spring rise and reservoir imbalance. It

has been -- it is yet to be seen what effect these

decisions will have on the ability to control water

117


4.11

6

flow past Gavins Point, but I believe these are

steps in the right direction.

It also should be noted that the Corps of

Engineers is not the only agency with the programs

of this type. The NRCS engages in wetland preserve

programs, as well as emergency watershed easement

programs, which when placed in the foreshore had the

same effect as discussed above.

Policies and procedures relating to the

repair of existing levee structures.

In July 1993, the Elwood-Gladden drainage

district was overtopped and subsequently failed.

After the failure and in May of 1995, the Corps of

Engineers, at the request of the drainage district,

conducted a reconnaissance study to determine the

federal and local interest in improving the

structures.

The reconnaissance study was completed in

1996, and recommended that further study be

conducted; thereafter, in May of 1999, a study to

determine the feasibility of making improvements to

the levee structure was commenced. The feasibility

study was completed in 2006, and approved by the

Corps of Engineers in 2007. At this time, the cost

estimate for the repair was $32 million.

118


4.11

7

In 2009, the Corps of Engineers and a

local sponsor executed a design agreement. In

2014, a project management plan was executed, and at

this time it was estimated that the project cost

would be approximately $66,833,000. In January

2017, the final cost estimate for the project was

$70,700,000.

A period of 22 years elapsed between the

reconnaissance study to determine the interest of

making an improvement in the levee structure and the

2017 funding of the project. During that time, I

believe the process was slowed by the failure of the

federal government to adequately fund its portion of

the project.

Ultimately the funding shortage and time

delays resulted in an increase in the overall cost

of the project by approximately 50 percent.

The process of repair and upgrade of an

existing flood control project is the same process

used to determine whether or not a new flood control

project should be constructed and the construction

of the same. Part of this process includes a

cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not

the project has enough benefit to justify the

expenditure of funds.

119


4.11

8

This, along with other environmental and

comment requirements, extends the time between when

a decision is made to repair or upgrade an existing

structure and the time that the repair can be made.

It would seem that if a project already

exists, it would be feasible to do away with a

number of prerequisites for construction. This

would allow for a streamlining of the construction

progress and effectuate repairs, upgrades to the

existing flood control projects in a more timely

fashion.

Further, it would make sense to apply

funds used in the repair of damages arising from

flood events to activities which would prevent

future flood events.

In other words, it does not seem rational

to continue to repair a structure which will not

protect at the necessary levels because there are

prerequisites to construction which adversely affect

the maintenance and upgrade of the existing

structures.

Finally, I want to comment on the effort

of the Corps of Engineers during the March 2019 high

water event. I speak specifically to the

Kansas City District because all of the districts I

120


4.11

9

represent are in that.

First, to put that in perspective, it is

necessary to understand what I believe has been a

transition of the Corps of Engineers from a

hands-off advisory branch to that of a working

partner in both flood fight activities as well as

flood repair and improvement activities.

In 1993, the river was at 27-foot flood

stage and on the side of the Elwood-Gladden levee

structure for a period in excess of 90 days, as a

result of overtopping and subsequent breach of the

levee structure.

During the weeks that led up to that, the

Corps of Engineers was difficult to reach and

offered little or no assistance with regard to flood

fighting efforts, levee monitoring or river level

determination.

In fact, on the date that the levee

overtopped and breached, the only advice that we

received from the Corps was to stay off of the

structure.

After the breach, the water began to

infiltrate, and we ended up with a teacup situation,

and in that situation we attempted to locate Corps

of Engineers for advice, and we couldn't find

121


4.12

0

anybody. Now, subsequent to that, the Corps of

Engineers increased its contact with our district

and began to become more involved with the

assistance of levee operations.

It's conducted instruction courses in sand

bagging and other flood fighting operations, as well

as the instruction relative to levee maintenance.

With each subsequent high water event, the Corps has

increased its knowledge base and improved its

service to provide the districts that I represent.

In short, during high water events, the

Corps has gone from a necessary evil to an

invaluable partner in defending against potential

flooding. In both 2011 and 2019, the Corps provided

around-the-clock assistance through its emergency

operations office on an individual basis.

On more than one night during the recent

event, calls were made to Corps staff at all hours

of the night. Each call was taken and each question

was answered.

In addition, the Corps had a member of

two staff had a minimum of two staff meniliers

daily on each of the structures that I represent for

this flood event.

At the r-471-460 and l-455 structures,

122


4.12

1

where they felt overtopping was imminent and there

was an imminent -- and there was a risk to life,

they stationed personnel at the local emergency

operation center around the clock for 36 to

48 hours. The presence gave a sense of confidence

to the flood

comments.

SENATOR ERNST: Mr. Euler, end your

MR. EULER: Yes, ma'am.

SENATOR ERNST: Mr. Hurst.

Thank you. Good morning. My thanks to

each of you for participating in today's field

hearing. It's extremely healthy -- helpful that

you're here to listen to those affected by this

year's flooding and see some of the damage

firsthand.

My name is Blake Hurst, and I'm a family

farmer from Tarkio, Missouri, about an hour south

and east of here. We raise row crops and operate a

commercial greenhouse operation.

Our county has about 70,000 acres under

water. I'm here as a member of the Coalition to

Protect the Missouri River and as president of

Missouri Farm Bureau.

For the past several weeks, we have

123


4.12

2

Prepared Statement of Joel R. Euler Given to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works On Wednesday April 17, 2019 at Kaufman Hall, Glenwood, Iowa

124


4.12

3

Greetings my name is Joel Euler and I am an attorney with offices located in Troy, Kansas. Troy

is located 10 miles west of St. Joseph, Missouri. As a part of my general law practice I represent

six drainage districts located in Missouri and Kansas along a stretch of the Missouri River which

begins at the Kansas-Nebraska line and ends just north of Atchison, Kansas. I have assisted these

districts with regulatory, operation and maintenance, flood flight and related activities starting

with the great flood of 1993 and including the events of 1998, 2009, 2011, and 2019.

The districts I represent are primarily agricultural in nature, however, two districts, the Elwood

Gladden Drainage District and the South St. Joseph Drainage and Levee District are what I refer

to as hybrid or combination districts. These Districts contain agricultural, industrial/commercial

and residential interests. Recent estimates value the assets protected by the structures to be in

excess of$2.7 billion with an estimated annual input in the local economy in the amount of$1 00

million.

I have been invited to visit with you today regarding flood risk management and flood recovery

efforts within the Missouri River basin as it pertains to the March, 2019 flood event. In that

regard, I would like to speak about four areas which I believe are directly related to the event in

question.

1. The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System Master Control Manual

2. The Missouri River Recovery Program 3. Policies and procedures relating to the repair and improvement of existing levee

structures 4. The Corps of Engineers involvement in the 2019 flood event

THE MISSOURI RIVER MAINSTEM RESERVIOR SYSTEM MASTER CONTROL

MANUAL

The retention and release of water in the Missouri River reservoirs is controlled by the afore

mentioned Master Manual. The purposes for operation of the system can be found in section 9 of

the 1944 Flood Control Act and are as follows:

I. Flood contro I 2. Navigation 3. Hydropower 4. Water supply 5. Fish and wildlife 6. Irrigation 7. Water quality control 8. Recreation

The Master Manual is designed to facilitate the uniform operation of all reservoirs on the

Missouri River mainstem. The Master Manual is necessary as each reservoir has its own

operations manual and the Master Manual provides for the operation of each reservoir in

conjunction with the other.

125


4.12

4

Page 12 Senate Presentation 2019

The Corps of Engineers retains the authority to revise the master manual pursuant to Corps Engineering Regulation 1110 -2-240. Which indicates that water control plans will be revised as necessary to confonn with changing requirements resulting from developments in the project area and downstream, improvements in technology, improved understanding of ecological response and ecological sustainability, new legislation, reallocation of storage, new regional priorities, changing environmental conditions and other relevant factors. The Manual also indicates that the goal is to maintain the flexibility that is required for effective operation of the systems.

The Master Manual also outlines various considerations taken into account when the control plan is developed or modified and indicates that input from external agencies, entities and stakeholders which will be affected will be taken. Further, the Manual indicates that the projects owned and operated by the Corps will be developed in concert with all basin interests which may be impacted or influenced by the project regulation.

While there are eight authorized purposes for operation of the system there is not any stated prioritization made between those purposes. As such, at times there is question among the downstream stakeholders as to the motives for operation of the system. I believe that it would be wise to prioritize the eight purposes in a fashion which placed an emphasis on flood control and thereafter prioritize the remaining seven purposes. This would give certainty to the stake holders as relates the basis of operation of the system.

I believe by doing this the system would be operated in a manner which would ensure that events of the type which have recently occurred and have occurred in the past would be greatly reduced. I also understand that operation in this fashion may reduce the effectiveness of the system to facilitate the other purposes, however, it would seem that the resources saved from continual repair operations resulting from high water events could be diverted to facilitate these other purposes.

THE MISS SOUR! RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM

The Missouri River Recovery Pro gram is used by the Corps of Engineers to purchase real estate which lays between a levee structure and the banks of the Missouri River. The program was initially conceived to assist in the protection of the federally listed species, piping plover, interior least tum and pallid sturgeon and address concerns which were caused by the Corps of Engineers Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project.

After acquisition the real estate is used to create chutes, backwaters, shallow water habitat, emergent sandbar habitat and cottonwood management plans to ensure the survival of the aforementioned species as well as other lifefonns located in the Missouri River basin. It would appear that an unintended consequence of the program is that it causes a degradation in the foreshore area (area between the levee structure and river bank) which acts to impede the flow of water during a flood event.

When the levees were initially designed the goal was to move the water downstream as quickly as possible, this was aided by having little or no substantial impedance in the foreshore area. This

126


4.12

5

I' a g c 13 Senate Presentation 2019

allowed the water to travel at a higher rate of speed which reduced both flooding and extended flood events.

The Missouri River Recovery Program has modified the foreshore area in that it has allowed the growth of cottonwood trees and underbrush and has created other structures which slow the water during a flood event. As the water slows it allows for the deposit of silts which increases the height of the foreshore and reduces the protective capability of the structure. In addition, it slows the speed with which the floodwater can leave the affected area thereby extending flood fight efforts and increasing the chance of a breach or overtop of a levee structure.

It should be noted that the Corps has recently modified the Master Manual to remove the spring rise and reservoir unbalancing. It has yet to be seen what effect these decisions will have on the ability to control water flow past the Gavin's Point dam but I believe these are steps in the right direction.

It should be noted that the Corps of Engineers is not the only agency with programs of this type the NRCS engages in the wetlands reserve program as well as an emergency watershed easement program which when placed in the foreshore of the levee structure have the same effect as discussed above.

To fully address this issue it will be necessary to determine the impacts of the Missouri River Recovery Program and like programs and to mitigate the impact they have on the management of the water in the Missouri River basin.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELA TfNG TO THE REP AIR OF EXISTfNG LEVEE STRUCTURES

In July, 1993 The Elwood Gladden Drainage District levee structure was overtopped and subsequently failed. After the failure and in May, 1995 the Corps of Engineers at the request of the Drainage District conducted a Reconnaissance Study to determine the federal and local interest in improving the structure. The Reconnaissance Study was completed in 1996 and recommended that further study be conducted.

Thereafter in May, 1999 a study to determine the feasibility of making improvements to the levee structure was commenced. The Feasibility Study was completed in September, 2006 and approved by the Northwestern Division of the Corps of Engineers in March, 2007. At this time the estimated cost to the repair was $32,777,000.00.

In 2009 the Corps of Engineers and the local sponsor executed a Design Agreement. In 2014 a Project Management Plan was executed and at this time is was estimated that the project would cost approximately $66,833,014.00. In January, 2017 the final cost estimate for the project was $70,700,000.00.

A period of22 years elapsed between the Reconnaissance Study to determine the interest of making an improvement to the Levee structure and the 2017 funding of the project. During that time the process was slowed by the failure of the federal government to adequately fund its

127


4.12

6

Senate Presentation 20 I 9

portion of the project. Ultimately the funding shortages and time delays resulted in an increase in the overall cost of the project by approximately 50%.

The process for the repair or upgrade of an existing flood control project is the same process used to determine whether or not a new flood control project should be constructed and construction of the same. Part of this process includes a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not the project as enough benefit to the affected area to justify the expenditure of funds to construct the project. This along with other environmental and comment requirements to extend the time between a deqision is made to repair or upgrade an existing structure and the time that the repair can be made.

It would seem that if a project already exists it would be feasible to do away with a number of the prerequisites for construction. This would allow a streamlining of the construction process and effectuate repairs and upgrades to existing flood control projects in a more timely fashion. Further, it would make sense to apply funds used in the repair of damages arising from flood events to activities which would prevent future flood damages. In other words it does not seem rational to continue to repair a structure which will not protect at the necessary levels because there are prerequisites to new construction which adversely affect the maintenance and upgrade of existing structures.

THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2019 FLOOD EVENT

Finally, I want to comment on the effort of the Corps of Engineers during the March, 2019 high water event. To put this in perspective it is necessary to understand what I believe has been a transition of the Corps of Engineers from a hands-off advisory branch of the government to that of a working partner in both flood fight activities as well as flood repair and improvement activities.

In 1993 the Missouri River was at a 27 foot flood stage and on the side of the Elwood Gladden levee structure for a period in excess of90 days. The result was an overtopping and subsequent breach of the levee structure. During the days and weeks leading up to the breach the Corps of Engineers was difficult to reach and offered little or no assistance with regard to flood fighting efforts, levee monitoring or river level determination. In fact on the date that the levee overtopped and breached the only advice received from the Corps of Engineers was to stay off of the levee structure.

After the breach of the levee structure water began to infiltrate the protected area and the structure began to act as a teacup retaining the water which was flowing into the protected area. When the District sought advice about how to resolve this issue no member of the Corps could be found.

Subsequent to that event the Corps increased its contact with the District and began to become more involved with assistance in levee operations. It conducted instructional courses in sandbagging and other flood fighting operations as well as other instruction relative to levee maintenance. With each subsequent high water event the Corps has increased its knowledge base and improved the service it has provided the districts I represent. In short, during high water

128


4.12

7

Page IS Senate Presentation 2019

events, the Corps has gone from a necessary evil to an invaluable partner in defending against

potential flooding.

In both 2011 and 2019 the Corps provided around-the-clock assistance through its Emergency

Operations office and on an individual basis. On more than one night during the recent event

calls were made to Corps staff at all hours of the night, each call was taken and question

answered. In addition, the Corps had a minimum of two staff members daily, on each of the six

units I represent during the flood event. At the r-471-460 and 1-455 structures where they felt

overtopping was imminent and there was a risk to life they stationed personnel at the local

emergency operations center around-the-clock for the 36 to 48 hours before during and after the

river crest. Their presence gave a sense of confidence to the flood fighting team and comfort to

the community as a whole. After the waters receded the Corps was on the scene to make an

evaluation of the damages and assist with immediate repairs if necessary.

As specifically relates to the Kansas City District of the Corps of Engineers it is impossible for

me to overstate the role it and its employees played in the flood fighting event as well as its

ongoing support as relates to the current levee upgrade project on the 1-455 and r-471-460

structures. In that regard, I believe the following individuals merit specific recognition:

John Grothaus, Chief, Formulation Section Melissa Corkill, Chief, Civil Works Programs and Project Management

Branch GeoffHengge!er, Chief, Civil Branch Craig Weltig, Civil Works Project Manager Scott Mensing, Civil Works Project Manager Jake Owen, Chief, Geotechnical Branch for Levee Safety

Derek Petre, Geotechnical Engineer for Levee Safety

Eugene J. Kneuvean, ChiefRediness, Contingency Office, Emergency

Operations

If you have questions about the information contained in my statement or this topic generally I

will be happy to answer them.

Very truly yours, EULER LAW OFFICES, LLC Joel R. Euler

129


4.12

8

watched our friends and neighbors in Iowa, Missouri,

Kansas and Nebraska suffer from the impacts of

historic Missouri River flooding.

~'le 've experienced severe winter weather,

bomb cyclone, leaving the record river stages, a dam

failure and scores--well over a hundred--of levee

breaches. To make matters worse, there was little

warning for residents to move personal property,

equipment and stored crops.

In Northwest Missouri, we've got

187,000 acres under water. This is the most

productive farmland in our state with yields far -

normally far above the state average. None of these

acres will be planted this growing season.

We estimate the value of the crops lost at

well over a hundred million dollars, and that

doesn't include the crops that were stored in bins

and lost to the flood waters.

We've heard a lot said about this event

very eloquently this morning, including criticism

directed toward the U.S. Corps of Engineers. While

there will be plenty of time to analyze if anything

could have been done better, we're thankful for the

Corps' efforts on several fronts, including

positioning flood control gates at Gavins Point Dam

130


4.12

9

to allow it to hold over two feet of extra water,

and stopping releases from reservoirs in Kansas,

Osage River and Fort Randall Dam. These

extraordinary measures undoubtedly present

prevented future further damage.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which

dictates much of the Corps' action, did require the

implementation in the past of artificial spring

rises, construction of shallow water habitat chutes

and notching of rock dikes that control the river's

channel.

Science-based species recovery efforts are

worthy of our support, but any planned habitat

construction projects that increase flood risk

should be discontinued immediately.

Going forward, government agencies and

stakeholders should engage in a renewed discussion

on how to enhance flood control throughout the

system.

While virtually all discussion has

centered on the mainstream Missouri River regulated

by dams, it is worth noting that this event

primarily originated in the unregulated portion of

the basin, which produces just less than half of the

average runoff into the Missouri River.

131


4.13

0

Any discussion in the future that has -

that ignores these unregulated rivers and misses

important source of our risk over our river basin.

It's time to redouble our efforts on

providing lower Missouri residents with an improved

flood control system that could better withstand

events and magnitude we're seeing in 2019. Flood

control and protection of human life and property

must be paramount in any decisions regarding the

river management.

We call on you and your colleagues to

authorize flood control as the primary purpose of

the Missouri management and not just in times of

high water.

Serious consideration must be given to

increased upstream flood control storage with that

being the mainstream dams or on tributary projects.

Any proposed change in flood control storage must

also keep an eye towards times of drought, which

Missouri River system is just as prone.

In addition, policy makers should take

into account navigation which is the other

congressional directed primary purpose of the

system, as well as water supply needs, water and

utilities, that we often take for granted that have

132


4.13

1

an enormous impact on people who live in the river

basin.

We're encouraged by the recent meeting

between the governors of Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska

and the Corps' leadership, focusing on solutions

protects against the future floods.

The governor stated they wanted to become

more active in Missouri River management, and it's

high time they have a prominent seat at the table.

Serious discussion must include federal, state and

local input.

We've seen a tremendous amount of

judgment -- destruction from this flood in terms of

the amount of personal suffering, but they also

create the chance to be more resilient in future

floods.

For the benefit of regional economic

development and opportunities for future

generations, we cannot delay these crucial

conversations.

When flood recovery is complete, we will

have failed if every structure is the same as it was

and if the management of the river has not changed.

To do the same things over and over again and expect

better results is the triumph of hope over

133


4.13

2

experience. We should not, we must not settle for

the pre-flood status quo.

We at the Coalition to Protect the

Missouri River and Missouri Farm Bureau look forward

to these continued conversations, and stand ready to

assist you and your colleagues in crafting

solutions.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here

today.


SENATOR ERNST: Thank you, all. We

will also start with a round of questioning. I want

to thank all of you, expertise at so many different

levels.

Mayor Crain, I would like to just start

with you. You've been through flood events with

Hamburg, and as their mayor, but also as a personal

citizen.

l<le've talked a little bit about -- about

the levee, and you explained that about how you

erected the levee to protect Hamburg, had to take it

dovm. We can get a little more into that, but you

expressed some different challenges that your

community is facing.

I would like you to talk a little bit

134


4.13

3

TESTIMONY OF BLAKE HURST BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT OF THE 2019 MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FLOODING ON APRIL 17,

2019 AT KAUFMAN HALL IN GLENWOOD, IOWA

Good Morning. My thanks to each of you for participating in today's field hearing. It's extremely helpful that you're here to listen to those affected by this year's flooding and see the damage firsthand.

My name is Blake Hurst and I am a family farmer from Tarkio, Missouri which is about an hour southeast of here. My family raises row crops and operates a commercial greenhouse operation. Our farm has not been flooded but our county has an estimated 70,000 acres under water. I'm here as a member of the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River and President of Missouri Farm Bureau.

Over the past several weeks, we have watched our friends and neighbors in Iowa, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska suffer from the impacts of historic Missouri River flooding. We've experienced severe winter weather, including the infamous "bomb cyclone" pattern, leaving behind record river stages, a dam failure, and scores of levee breaches. To make matters worse, there was little warning for residents to move personal property, equipment and stored crops.

We estimate that 187,000 acres have been flooded in four counties in northwest Missouri. As you know, this is extremely productive farmland with yields normally far above the state average. Most, if not all, of these acres will not be planted this growing season and we estimate the value of lost production of corn and soybeans alone at slightly over $100

million, not including crops that were stored in bins and lost to the flood waters.

Much has been said about this event, including criticism directed toward the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). While there will be plenty of time to analyze if anything could've been done better, we're thankful for the Corps' efforts on several fronts, including positioning flood control gates at Gavins Point Dam to allow it to hold over two feet of extra water at Lewis and Clark Lake, and stopping releases from reservoirs in Kansas, the Osage River and Fort Randall Dam. These extraordinary measures undoubtedly prevented further damage.

While some are angry at the Corps, a more comprehensive review of the root causes must be considered. For example, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service), which dictates much of the Corps' actions, did require the implementation of artificial spring rises, construction of shallow water habitat chutes and notching of rock dikes that control the river's channel. While we support science-based species recovery efforts, any planned habitat construction projects that increase flood risk should be discontinued immediately.

135


4.13

4

Going forward, government agencies and stakeholders should engage in renewed discussion on how to enhance flood control throughout the system. While virtually all the discussion has centered on the rnainstern Missouri River regulated by darns, it's worth noting this event primarily originated in the "unregulated" portion of the basin, which produces just less than half of the average runoff into the Missouri River. Any discussion that ignores this important fact misses the mark.

It's time to redouble our efforts on providing lower Missouri River residents with an improved flood control system that can better withstand events of the magnitude we're seeing in 2019. Flood control and protection of human life and property must be paramount in any decisions regarding Missouri River management. We call on you and your colleagues to authorize flood control as the primary purpose of Missouri River management.

Serious consideration must be given to increased upstream flood control storage, whether that be in the rnainstern darns or on tributary projects. Any proposed change in flood control storage must also keep an eye toward times of drought, which the Missouri River system is just as prone to.

In addition, policy makers should take into account navigation, which is the other congressionally directed primary purpose of the system, as well as water supply needs for drinking water and utilities that we often take for granted, but have an enormous impact in our everyday lives.

We are encouraged by the recent meeting between the governors of Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska and Corps leadership, focusing on solutions to protect against future floods. The governors stated they want to become more active in Missouri River management, and it's high time they have a prominent seat at the table. Serious discussion must include federal, state and local input.

While large floods often create huge amounts of destruction and personal suffering, they also create the chance to be more resilient to future floods. For the benefit of regional economic development and opportunities for future generations, we cannot delay these crucial conversations.

When flood recovery is complete, we will have failed if every structure is the same as it was, and if the management of the river has not changed. To do the same things and expect better results is the triumph of hope over experience. We should not, no we must not, settle for the pre flood status quo!

We at the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River and Missouri Farm Bureau look fonvard to these continued conversations and stand ready to assist you and your colleagues in crafting solutions.

Thank you.

136


4.13

5

about some different circumstances that you have

witnessed with some of the citizens of Hamburg. You

did mention in your comments you had folks that have

been living in their cars, you have -- you know, if

you could just talk to us, tell us a little bit for

the record, you know, what some of your community

members are going through and the hardship that

they're enduring.

And, again, this is a flood event that is

not over yet. l'le have probably many, many more

months of flooding yet to go, not to mention actual

recovery. So if you could express some of the

hardships your citizens are facing.

MAYOR CRAIN: We have a lovely couple

from India who own the motel, and they raised their

children in Hamburg and we love them, and their home

and their motel has been -- and their business is

under water.

And it -- we are in Day 31, and they've

heard nothing regarding what will happen based from

insurance or from FEMA. And Shenandoah is a very

lucky community because they have moved there.

We -- I have business owners that I've

respected that can't make a phone call. They have

lost their business and their home and they just

137


4.13

6

need help. I've had to turn all the individual

issues over to the hospital for them to help -

individually help these people that immediately get

denied by FEMA, and then need to climb up the ladder

a little bit taller so that -- a little bit more so

maybe they can get a yes somewhere else. And they

need help doing that because of their trauma.

The fact that we -- there aren't -- that

the FEMA trailers have been -- the fact that the

FEMA trailer program has been discontinued is

forcing people to live in their cars and with

family, friends and/or moving.

The fact that we don't have any dry,

affordable housing for these people to go to, and

that we don't have any dry rental space for our

businesses, our self-employed businesses, who are

also denied by FEMA, and that they have no place to

set up shop.

So we have ice (sic), two pieces of ground

for future -- for future expansion, and one of the

ground does meet the requirements of the Corps' for

the soil samples for the million dollars' worth of

dirt that we need to buy to put up the levee.

And we are we are getting a $2 million

drawdown so we're going to be ready whenever that

138


4.13

7

water is gone, so we can build the levee to protect

our town.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you very much,

Mayor Crain. We appreciate that.

And Mr. Ettleman, if -- in your opinion,

what changes could be made to the river management

that would decrease the frequency and severity of

flood events? What -- what could be done?

MR. ETTLEMAN: Several things. I

think one of the things that would be felt the top

priority would be making flood control the dominant

function of the river again, as it was prior to the

2004 master management.

The other thing is the river control

structures, the wing dikes that have been

deteriorated not -- back in the day, those were -

those were called training structures, trained the

water on the self-carry system to where it kept the

water from -- the river beds from becoming degraded

and -- or aggregating, building up, raising the

bottom of the river. That was a very good thing.

Another thing is readjusting the zones -

the zones on the control - on the reservoir level.

And this is based off of the flood of 1881, the

72.4 million acre feeds storage cap. In 2011, we

139


4.13

8

exceeded that with up to 72.4 (sic) million acre

feed.

There was a bill in the house of

representatives, a congressman from the state of

Iowa issued this bill in the house of

representatives to make this new benchmark, the

2011 flood storage the new benchmark. And the water

management division of the Corps of Engineers fought

vigorously, that bill died in the house. So those

are very important issues right there.

SENATOR ERNST: Thank you very much.

Now we'll have questions from

Senator Gillibrand.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you, 1\'ladam

Chairwoman.

I just want to thank you all for your

testimony. I can tell you each one of you is able

to give me substantive information about the

performance we desperately needed. I want to thank

Mr. Ettleman for really taking us through MRRP

actions where we will study this and figure out what

needs to be done.

I think in terms of Mr. Euler, I thought

your analysis about the 22 years that has lapsed,

and costs have increased by SO percent shows the

140


4.13

9

outrage of how inefficient the federal government

can be in not serving families in need.

And Mr. Hurst, I thought your analysis

about why we keep doing the same thing over and over

again, so simple and so profoundly true.

So Mayor Crain, last congress I worked

with my colleagues to take the emergency authority

to a new level. Under prior law, the Corps can

actually come in for 30 days at a 100 percent of

federal cost to assist a community with a temporary

measure like your levee. Now, the law allows that

help to continue now for 60 days, so it's slightly

better.

Would you say that we should change this

law even further to allow the Corps to build these

levees in a more permanent capacity? Should we

require the Corps to come back after the emergency

and bring the levees up to permanent code? Doesn't

that make much more sense since we know that the

levees are needed?

MAJOR GENERAL SPELLMON: Of course.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: So for my

colleagues, this is an actual item that we perhaps

can do in this congress, and I will write the bill

and I will seek a republican cosponsor to actually

141


4.14

0

do that.

Because to, again, create the same

temporary structures as Mr. Hurst said and know that

they will be over- - overcome and breached in the

next round of flooding is outrageous. And not to

spend the money now when you know it can prevent the

next flooding or the next hardship seems absurd.

MAYOR CRAIN: The -- I just want to

clarify --


1\'lAYOR CRAIN: -- something, the

contract that we had to sign that forced us to take

the levee down

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Yes.

t1AYOR CRAIN: -- was with the

United States of America.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Exactly.

1'-lAYOR CRAIN: It was not with the

Corps of Engineers.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Yeah.

MAYOR CRAIN: And

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: The Corps works

for the United States of America, so I get you have

to sign it with the federal government, but this is

a perfect example of government inefficiency. You

142


4.14

1

know --

absurd.

agree --

MAYOR CRAIN: I have so many, I

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: It's just

MAYOR CRAIN: - you won't have time.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Yeah, so I

MAYOR CRAIN: No FEMA trailers.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I hear you.

MAYOR CRAIN: Can't reach all the

United States Senators because govern- -- senate.gov

don't really have the right addresses. We don't

have time.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Well, so,

Madam Mayor, I was very moved by the stories of the

people in your community who are suffering, business

owners who literally can't make a phone call.

You would be shocked to know that

Super Storm Sandy, after seven years, we still

haven't rebuilt all of the homes, all of the

businesses, and actually made people whole.

One of the biggest concerns I have is how

slow FEMA is in terms of getting money into the

hands of people who are desperate to rebuild. We

know that since your flooding, 824 applications have

143


4.14

2

been approved, and about $4 million has been

authorized.

The problem is it is so slow that people

can't possibly rebuild. The fact that we don't have

housing for families to go into, the fact that

people are going to be homeless or living in

temporary places for weeks and months.

As a mother, I can't imagine the impact on

a child. Imagine the impact on children who can't

go to school or don't have certainty, and for any

business owner to not know whether they're going to

be able to actually get back up and running so they

can actually pay their bills. It is a hardship.

And so I just take all of the testimony

that you each gave us about real solutions to making

sure this doesn't happen again. My time is nearly

expired, but Mr. Hurst, I just v.rant to leave you

with one question.

What could have been or should have been

done differently between 2011 and 2019 floods to

better protect these communities?

MR. HURST: I think that for this

instance when most of the most of the water came

below the reservoir system, improving the channel.

And Leo was exactly right on his

144


4.14

3

description of what's happening along the chaimel.

It was interesting in this event, the water was

11 feet above the flood stage north of Kansas City,

on its way to crest as it moved through Kansas City.

It was about two, three -- 2.3 feet above flood

stage, and east of Kansas City once again

(inaudible) flood stage.

That could have been happening because of

the differences in the bottom of the river, a

channel that's no longer being maintained and is

actually raising -- that's raising the river and

reducing the protection from the levee. So I think

that's something we really need to be thinking

about.


Again, thank you, Senator Gillibrand as

well as Senator Grassley.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I'm not going to

ask questions, but I do want to make a few comments.

One would be we're well aware of the

housing issue. I'm told through headquarters in

Washington that FEMA housing program hasn't been

discontinued, that the state and county emergency

management people are working with FEMA on options

for housing for the county.

145


4.14

4

My office is called FEMA headquarters. It

talked about the challenges regarding housing in

southwest Iowa.

And, Mayor Crain, I've heard you talk

about the $8 million that you paid for the for

the levee or that was paid for the levee, and

$600,000 to take it out. ru1d the fact that it

wasn't up to code, I assume you and I would feel

that it would have helped to still been there if it

wasn't up to structure.

So that's a tiny example of where we say

things may not be perfect, there's a lot of things

that are our government does that are not perfect,

but we seem to get by with them --


SENATOR GRASSLEY: so this is an

example where we ought to say things may not be

perfect, but if they get the job done, let's do it

and not waste $600,000 through the process.


SENATOR GRASSLEY: And so I hope that

we are more successful than we were after the

2011 flood. I've been there to talk to your people,

to talk to you, to see what happened in

Pacific Junction, other towns that have been hurt,

146


4.14

5

and, again, all I can say to you, whether it's

farmers or city people, I hope that we can keep this

thing from happening again, and, you know, the only

way to have this happen or not happen again is to

make sure that we -- we do the things that bring

changes to the Corps' management of the waters.

It's very necessary to do that.

You come down here three or four times,

I'd like to come to Fremont County once a year to

have my town meeting with your people. I hope I

never have to come back again to observe another

flood.

I yield back to Madam -


Senator Moran.

SENATOR MORAN: Chairwoman, thank you

very much. Thank you all for your testimony today,

particularly those affected so dramatically by

floods. Please know that Kansans care, a lot of

volunteer efforts are taking place across our state

to provide aid to Nebraska and to Iowa in

particular, and those efforts will continue.

We have our share of disasters throughout

the year, and people respond to - from the great

place that you don't see in time of disaster. Not

147


4.14

6

necessarily the government response, but the people

response that makes a significant difference in the

lives of our friends and neighbors, people we don't

even know. So please know that you're in a lot of

care and compassion from folks back home.

tv1r. Euler, thank you for coming from

Kansas to be here. Just have perhaps two or three

quick questions.

Would prioritizing flood control above all

other purposes at all times, not just when -- during

a significant runoff period occurs, in combination

of installing or repurposing the Missouri River

Recovery Plan (sic), would those be the two most

effective actions that we immediately admitted for

future flood?

MR. EULER: I agree with that. I

think we need to prioritize flood control. There

are other purposes, but it seems like we continue to

have this issue all the time and we (inaudible)

profile (inaudible) .

Second, I believe that's important to take

another examination of the Missouri River Recovery

Program, and see what it's done to the way water

leads downstream and it slows it up, and you see

what we have. We have more flood events and have

148


4.14

7

longer duration flood events and (inaudible) .

SENATOR MORAN: I think it was

Mr. Hurst who indicated that the river further down

the river is not being maintained, which then I

assume means the elevation of the river bed is

higher. That means water backs up easier to

upstream.

Can you explain to me what -- what

transpired, what occurred to cause the river basin,

the river channel downstream?

MR. HURST: Mr. Euler did a great job

of describing what we have. We used to have

training dikes, as was mentioned earlier. Those

have been cut, so the water is no longer trained to

go down the middle of the channel. (Inaudible) not

slit -- silt like inside the levees, which raises

the ground that the river travels in high water.

So it's all those things have reduced the

capacity of the river channel between the levees,

and in turn increase the heighth of the river and

flooding.

Incidentally Missouri still hasn't

received our federal emergency declaration, and so

we hope that will be coming soon.

SENATOR MORAN: Let me go back to

149


4.14

8

Mr. Euler.

You indicated in your testimony about land

acquisition under MRRP. What would be the most

effective application of land swap, land acquisition

authorities the Corps has?

MR. EULER: So I think w·ha t you

should do in MRRP is get rid of or use that real

estate. So what the board has (inaudible) real

estate on the land on the river side, then it

changes.

To me, what you should do, if you want to

have something of that type, you should buy real

estate immediately adjacent on the river side, be

willing to sell it and that'll allow you to move the

structure back which increases the -- the area that

the water has to come up when there's a flood event,

so it increases the area of water (inaudible)

downstream.

It's also interesting to note that I

believe that when the levee structures were

designed, it was primarily for flood control, and

then these other dynamics have been expanded on as

the system has gotten greater, older and priorities

among the public changes. And because the

priorities among the public changes, we no longer

150


4.14

9

think about flood control.

For me, the thing that (inaudible) the

thing that's most important for me is in my

conversation with regard to preparing 471-460

structures, the cost-benefit analysis is a good

deal, and we're getting overlooked in the central

part of the United States because we just don't pass

muster as it relates to that.

Another thing that you should be concerned

about with this flooding thing is if you're on an

agricultural levee and you don't pass that

cost-benefit, then you may not get it repaired this

time.

N1d I think that's a disservice to those

folks, because in the '50s and '60s, when they put

these structures up, your whole lifestyle is now

based on this.

This is a structure you've paid money for

your farm ground based on the structure to protect

it so it's got a higher price, you've made

improvements behind that structure, and now to think

that we could be affected by a cost-benefit analysis

and not have the repair would be a career ending and

generations of farm -- family farm ending.

So you make sure that you pay attention to

151


4.15

0

that. I think that you should shorten the time line

for a repair on an existing structure.

SENATOR MORAN: Thank you very much.

I heard General Spellman say in response

to my question about cost-benefit analysis repairs

to those levees, go back through that process.

Unfortunately the answer was yes, and the

consequences of what we point out is people who made

investments based on flood controlled structures

being in your neighborhood may no longer have those

structures protecting. The consequence of the land

values and actual ability to earn a living on a

farm, keep a farm disappear if those levees go away.

MR. EULER: This further adds

credence to the reason -- to the logic that you

should do away with some of these prerequisites for

new construction when you're dealing with old

construction.

SENATOR MORAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Madam

Chairwoman, I just want to thank the witnesses for

their excellent testimony, but I also want to ask

unanimous consent to submit a statement for

(inaudible) member Thomas Harper to put into record.

152


4.15

1

SENATOR ERNST: And we have unanimous

consent, so that statement will be entered into the

record.

And I also ask unanimous consent that

written statement from Senator Hawley of Missouri

and comments of letters from several stakeholders

also be added to the record.

And with unanimous consent, those

statements will be added to the record.

I do want to take this time to thank all

of our witnesses here today.

Mayor Crain, thank you very much for your

just resolute leadership for this disaster. We look

forward to ;.rorking with you. Many suggestions we

need to take back to DC, and I know that you're in

the hearts of many.

And Mr. Ettleman, thank you very much for

your continued efforts to make sure that our river

system is managed properly.

Mr. Euler, for those that you represent in

Kansas, thank you for joining us today.

And you as well, Mr. Hurst, coming from

Missouri. Thank you for your representation on the

panel.

I want to thank our United States Army

153


4.15

2

Corps of Engineers as well for their representation

in answering our questions today.

Governor Kim Reynolds, thank you for

taking the time out of your very busy schedule to

join us as you spent much, much time here in

southwest Iowa. We certainly appreciate that.

For out- audience members, thank you so

much for your respect and dignity today during this

hearing. This will be very important as we

communicate back to other senators about the

absolute need to get our disaster supplemental

package done in a timely manner so that we provide

proper resources for our citizens here in the

Midwest.

So thank you very much for joining us here

today.

Let's see oh, yes, the hearing record will

be open for 30 days, so if you do have additional

information that witnesses would like to present

within that record, it will be open for 30 days.

And, again, I want to thank everybody for

your time today, and with that, this hearing is

closed.

(10:45 a.m. -Adjournment.)

154


4.15

3

The United States Senate .Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6175

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I. Without fold control, nothing else matters.

2. As A Missouri River navigator from 197& until my retirement in AugUst of201 & (41 seasons) !testify that the Missouri River can successfully be navigated in years of low water, in years of high water and in years when the River flows make navigation easy, In these 41 seasons, there was only one sea.~l)n (2005) whenB11ll1swickRiver Terminal (BIU) did not have access to Missouri River navigation. The lackofBRT Missouri River navigation in 2005 was caused by both Missouri River navigation companies providing barge service to suddenly .and unexpectedly go out of business in February, 2005. Businesses along the MiSsouri River needing barge service didn't have time to organize service for 2005. However, we did by spring 2006 and have had dependable barge service ever since.

3. The solution to effective MissoUri River flood control is simple; mandate a Missouri Water Management plan that increases the amount of upstream reservoir space for flood control.

Bill Jackson Marshall, Missouri

155


4.15

4

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510c6175.

Apri112, 2019

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Flood control should be the primary concern when managing the Missouri River.

Flooding jeopardizes people, industries and the food produced along the river with costs in the rnultiple billions.

Protecting Wildlife is a noble endeavor, but should be moderated so as not to jeopardize the most endangered species of all; that being the people & industry along the river;

Sincerely, Carol Munson Ross 22696 Osage Rd Brunswick, MO 65236

156


4.15

5

The United States Senate Committee .on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6175

Dear Committee Members:

As a farther for a little over 50 years along the Missouri River we have been adversely impacted by the high river levels since the shift from flood control to recreation and wildlife. When flood control was the number one priority we always would have a spring rise and be. done with it. However now with the Corp scheduling releases on the river they continue to keep river levels at flood stage or above for long periods of time. With river levels this high flood gates are shut! Seep water impacts several thousands of acres along the river making it impossible to plant crops. I believe it is time to go back to flood control as number one priority

David Nail Concerned farmer

157


4.15

6

The Gow!ns Point reservoir elevation was 1205.8 feet and Gavlns Point releases had been reduced from 20,000 ds to 17,000 d.s. On M.arch a heavy rainfall event totaling 2 to 4 inches of predpitat~on fel! over Nebraska, South Dakota and !ow a on top of a snowpack containing 2 to 3 inches of !lquid content. Due to the frozen and saturated soils, very little of the rainfa!! and snowmelt infiltrated into the solL Rather, it became -direct runoff into streams and throughout Nebraska and Iowa resulting in record hlgh flows on many of the unregulated streams and rivers in the !ow-er Missouri River basin (see Attachment 1).

the Exdus!ve flood Control Zone, the Corps needed to increase Gavins Point releases to 100,000 cfs for 6 hours so that the gatE'S would not be overtopped. Peak hourly inflows into the Gavins Point reservoir exceeded 180,000 cfs and the March 14 avemge doily inflow (Fort Randall releases were 0 ds) was 125,000 cfs, a volume of 250,000

Once the Niobrara River Haws peaked, releases from Gavins Point were reduced over several days and the reservoir !eve! gradually declined. Gavlns Point hourly r<:servoir elevations, releases and e.stlmated iflflows can be seen on Figure 2.

One of the watersheds that was impacted was the Niobrara River basin, which f!ows into the Mlssouri River between Fort Randal! and G,wins Point Darns, the two lowermost Missouri rnalnstem projects. The Corps reduced Fort Randa!! releases to 0 cfs to lessen lnf!ow into the Gavlns Point reservoir. However, the Gavins Point project, which is are~ regiJiation project used to smooth out fluctuating releases from upstream projects, contains only a minima! amount {about 100,000 acre-feet, see Figure 1} of the Mainstem

System's flood control storage {less than 1%}. Thus, the Gavins Point reservoir's available flood contro! storage was qulckly H!1ed.

AH 14 Gavins Point spi!Jway gates were used to increase the a practice referred to as surcharglng. Even pool to 1212.3 fee-t, 2.3 above the top of

Gavins Point Observed Data

158


4.15

7

River.

• Inflows into Gavlns Point, which are mainly from the Niobrara River, exceeded the reservoir design flood. • Preliminary analysis of Gavins Point inflow frequencies forthls event; 7-day volume is approximately a SOQ,year

recurrence, 1-day and 3-day volumes exceed lOOO~year recurrence, March runoff ln the Fort Randall to Gavins Point reach wdl be the highest in 120 years of record.

As seen on Attachment 1, a number of flow/stage records were set during this event on the Missouri River and its tributarles.

Current Status and Planned Regulation (as of 27 Marcil) storage is currently 58.5 MAF; 2.4 MAF of the 163 MAF of flood control storage is occupied. About 80% of the

storage is avaHable to store runoff this spring and summer. {Current reservoir !evefs and System storage can be seen in Figure 3.)

Current Reservoir Levels Heavy plains snow in South Dakota and North Dakota is melting over frozen, wet sods, Similar to what occurred tn Nebraska and Iowa, most of the melted snow Js becoming direct runoff rather than infiltrating !nto the soiL Some of the runoff is being captured in the lowerfour Malnstem reservoirs; Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randal! and Gavins Point, while the rest is flowing down the James and Big Sioux Rivers directly into the Missouri River be!ow Gavins Point,

The AprH 1 nmoff forecast for the upper Missouri River basin (above Sioux City, !owa) indicates that 2019 wl!J be 10 Percent" (upper decile} follows 2018, which was the 3'n highest in 120

years of record-keeping, For 2018, flood evacuation began ln March and re!ease decisions since then have been driven by the flood control purpos€, We have !n!tlated flood evacuation releases and wlll adjust them as downstream cnndit!ons allow. By starting as early ln the season as possible, we maximize the amount of time to make above-average release.5 to keep the releases as !ow as reduce downstream flood risk while ensuring that all 2019 flood waters are evacuated 2020 runoff season,

159


4.15

8

Attachment 1

PeakStreamflowson the Mainstemofthe Missouri River and its Tributaries Floods of 13·11 March 2019

160


4.15

9

COMMENTS BY DAN DELICH AND LARRY J. PRATHER

SUBMITTED TO:

THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTE£ ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

FOil A HEARING ON

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Management of the 2019 Missouri River Basin Flooding

GlENWOOD, IOWA

April 17, 2019

Use of flood plains involving periodic damage from floods is not. in itselt a sign of unwarranted or inefficient development It may well be that the advantages of flood plain location outweigh the intermittent cost of

damages from floods. Further, there ore some kinds of activity which can only be conducted near a watercourse.

"Presidential Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy 89" Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 465 Chairman Gilbert F. White, August1966

We commend Senators Ernst and Grassley for hosting the Committee on Environment and Public Works in Glenwood, Iowa, to examine management issues affecting the Missouri River and its people. The following includes brief comments and recommendations on;

1. Missouri River Mainstem System Management 2. Federal Commitment to Flood Control 3. National levee Safety Program 4. Global Climate Change

1. Missouri River Mainstem System Management

Flood devastation this spring in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri has reignited the decades·long debate over U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) management of the congressionally authorized

161


4.16

0

dam and reservoir projects in the Missouri River basin. Concerns about Corps de-prioritization of

flood control were reinforced when Federal Claims Court Judge Nancy B. Firestone ruled last year

that severe Missouri River flooding in recent years "was caused by and was the foreseeable result" of

changed agency management practices.

Over the five decades since the Missouri River Main stem System (System) of six dam and reservoir

projects has been operational, the Corps has adjusted operation and storage to balance competing

objectives. These adjustments have by and large been made without the close involvement of

Congress.

Recommendation: In light of recent major flooding, including the 1993, 2011 and 2019 disaster

events, it is necessary for the Congress to establish an objective review of System operations and storage management together with underlying priorities to ensure that congressional intent is being

met with regard to flood control and other objectives. This review should begin with the storage and

operations that Congress authorized for the System and examine the adjustments to that base during

the life of the system and the effect of those adjustments on flood control and other purposes.

2. Federal Commitment to Flood Control

In the 201h Century, the United States began to build public works for flood management along the

Missouri River and elsewhere, we elevated houses, local governments acted to adopt building

codes and we made affordable flood insurance available. We have not always done a perfect

job and now, in many places, we're reeling from decades of de-prioritizing economic flood control

projects. The Corps estimates that water resources spending levels of $70 per person in the mid·

1930s have fallen to the current rate of $11.50 per person. Meanwhile, more than 40 percent of our

population has migrated to flood-vulnerable areas along our coasts and rivers.

Going forward, we can reduce flood damages through planning and investment or attempt to

regulate our way to a better future. After the 1927 Mississippi River flood, the Nation chose

planning and investment to build a mighty flood protection system along the Lower Mississippi River.

This project has prevented more than $1 trillion of flood damages with a return of $67-$80 for each dollar invested.

Flood hazard mitigation and protection projects have advanced our well-being. FEMA hazard

mitigation yields an average return of $4 for each dollar invested. Nationally, Corps of Engineers'

flood projects generate an average return of $7.90 for each dollar invested.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Homeland Security, Army, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban

Development should be directed to jointly prepare an annual cross-cut statement for Federal flood

control and mitigation. This statement, which will perform as an across-the-board metric, will

accompany the President's annual budget request to Congress. The statement will include sufficient

information to dynamically score all flood-related projects and activities. By simultaneously and

uniformly focusing attention on all agency programs for flood control and mitigation, Congress can

better prioritize and coordinate the unique aspects of each agency program to maximize the

162


4.16

1

budgetary contribution of these programs to reducing floods and saving other budget resources. By empowering dynamic scoring, Congress can move beyond the current impacts of expenditures on projects and activities to discover how these efforts contribute to saving budget dollars in the future. The cross-cut flood investment statement will facilitate an integrated Federal commitment to flood control and their impacts on life safety, the economy and the overall Federal budget. With this objective information tool, the Congress can better promote, reduce or improve the contributions of each agency program.

3. National Levee Safety Program

After catastrophic flooding in New Orleans caused by levee failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Nation did not recommit itself to long-term planning and investment in economic flood control works. Instead, the Corps broadly reasserted permitting authority under Section 14 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act to expand regulatory control over proposed levee repairs and improvements under the 408 Program.

In turn, the Congress responded to modern flood peril by using 2007 and 2014 water resources legislation to establish the regulatory National Levee Safety Program {NLSP) as administered by the Corps and Federal Emergency Management Agency. The NLSP is being used by the Corps, even without specific congressional funding, to produce unfounded, non-empirical levee risk ratings based on internally developed qualitative metrics. Equally troubling is the agency's decision to publicize its risk ratings in the absence of site-specific solutions with corresponding cost estimates. The Corps itself references these concerns in a nationwide levee portfolio report1 published in March 2018 (p. 28):

"USACE has recently begun sharing information from risk assessments with sponsors and other Community risk managers. This has required a deliberate change in thinking from a condition-based framework, based on inspections, to a more comprehensive analysis of information that synthesizes hazard, levee performance, and potential consequences. In addition, there may be reluctance to share risk information with the public when an immediate and viable risk management solution has not been identified." (emphasis added]

Following the 1927 Mississippi River flood, the Nation chose planning and investment to build a mighty flood protection system that has prevented more than $1 trillion in flood damages. By contrast in the post-Katrina era, the Federal government has responded with regulation: Corps 408 permitting program and the NLSP.

Recommendation: The NLSP should be repealed or at least improved to increase NLSP transparency, reestablish the imperative for integral involvement by local levee sponsors with the Corps, and

1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Levee Portfolio Report: A Summary of Risks and Benefits Associated With the USACE Levee Portfolio. March 2018. Available at: https:Uusace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001colll/id/6922

163


4.16

2

require that levee risk assessments be accompanied by site-specific risk reduction solutions with corresponding cost estimates.

4. Global Oimate Change

It is well known that the U.S. has suffered considerable, widespread flood and storm-related losses in recent years. Because of these recent, multiple flood disasters, the Congress has received voluminous testimony, reports and surmisal on causality, which to varying degrees identify development patterns, population demographics, aging and/or poorly maintained infrastructure, and the effects of long-term changes in weather patterns and the global climate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most visible scientific body on climate change, has examined these complex issues, and in its most recent report on impacts and vulnerability (2014) the Panel reached the following conclusions:

• Direct and insured losses from weather-related disasters have increased substantially in recent decades, both globally and regionally;

Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration, is the most important driver of increasing losses; and,

Apart from detection, loss trends have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change; most such claims are not based on scientific attribution methods. 2 [emphasis added]

In other words, the cost associated with flooding is increasing, but- according to the IPCC- the spike in flood-related costs may be better explained by the fact that people and wealth are concentrating evermore near water.

Finally, in the November 2017 foundational science report (Chapter 8) published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), it is revealed that overall U.S. flooding has demonstrated both increasing and decreasing magnitude, but there is no robust evidence that these trends are attributable to human [climate] influence. The USGCRP reveals: "Hence, no formal attribution of observed flooding changes to anthropogenic forcing has been claimed." Similar findings were reported concerning drought statistics in the U.S. and globally: " ... there is no detectable change in meteorological drought." Importantly, the USGCRP report of November 2018, which has received

2 Arent, D.J., R.S.J. Tol, E. Faust, J.P. Hella, s. Kumar, K.M. Strzepek, F.L T6th, and D. Yan, 2014: Key economic sectors and services. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel an Climate Change (Field, C. B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and l.l. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New Yorl<. NY, USA, 680-681. Available at: http:l/www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap10 FINAL.pdf.

164


4.16

3

considerable media and political attention for its forecasts of imminent and dire climate change impacts, is not a foundational scientific document but instead "focuses on human welfare, societal, and environmental elements of climate change ...... using projected risks." [emphasis added]

Recommendation: Regardless of one's views on the threats posed by global climate change and sea

rise, it isn't possible or desirable to relocate up to one-half of the nation's

population and wealth because of storm vulnerability. This is true in the Missouri River basin and for the entirety of the U.S. We do not possess the wherewithal to build higher and stronger everywhere.

But where "higher, stronger or 'elsewhere"' are clearly justified and within our means, then we should collaboratively pursue such measures.

Rational efforts to bolster resilience for communities should be meaningfully informed by public input and federalism and produced through disciplined use of rigorous analysis of all feasible alternatives, unbiased assessment of costs and benefits and application of objective, widely accepted scientific data.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views and recommendations.

Dan Delich co-founded the Floodplain Alliance for Insurance Reform and worked previously os a

congressional staffer ond U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analyst. don.de/[email protected]

Larry 1. Prather is on independent consultant and was assistant director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters. lorry.j.prother@qmoil. cam

165


4.16

4

Statement and Question~ tor the RecOrd Field Hearing. Enllironment and Public Wor~s. Committee

Seriirtor Josh D. Hawley (R-MO} Aprill7, 2019

GeneraiSpellmon;.last month we spoke regarding concerns from my constituents aboulsigriificant · trouble they experienced in dl!aling with the Amny CQrps of Englneers.These concerns range from a lack of responsiveness to misplaced priorities in the management of the river system. They also include allegations that the Corps dumped soil into the river as part C!fthe Habitat Rehabilitation Program for the Pallid Sturgeon and paid inadequate attention to dozens of broken levees.

It is disappointing that my constituents need to worry about the. pribrities of the Corps while dealing with the effects of historicflooding: Thousands were evacuated from the city of St. Joseph as river levels surpassed fifteen feet. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland have been flooded, destroying Missourians' grain and livestock. In the meantime, flooding from neighboring Nebraska ca.used the shutdown of a water treatment plant, which resulted in 65. million gallons of raw sewage per day pouring into creeks that flow Into the Missouri River. This sewage flow is prQjected to continue for weekS, if not months, until the plant" can be repaired. For our agencies to be urtderprepared and unable to respond is unacceptable.

Gerteral Spellmon, I walked away from our meeting convinced that the Army Corp$ of Engineers is an agency in .nee.ciof change. In particular, the Corps appears to lack both a dear plan of action and a syst~ for ranking its various priorities, Jn.our meeting, you outlined eight different priorities, many of whiCh are iri tension with one anothe.r and none of which fall into a clear strategy or operating plan, If you have eight contradictory priorities, yoli have no priorities.

As I noted In our meeting, we cannot go" on like this. We heed to think about serious reforms to the Corps, not only to address the, short-term ftxes l:tut to ensure it is appropriately positioned to respond to and manage disasters in the future.

As part ofthat process; I would like to ask your thoughts on revisions to the master manual,. and whether it makes sense to bring the Corps into another agency altogether. We need to be sure the Corps. is focused onits top priority and a key part.of its mandate -the management of rivers and flooding;

What wpuld a Corps under the Department ofTransportation or the Department of lnterio.flook like? What kind of new authorities would it have to keep its .focus on the flooding?

Can you e~plain forthe record your current plan of action for addressing the continued snowmelt in the northwest and.forecasts from NOAA that more snowmelt is ori its way? What kind of communication dq you have with NOAA and other agencies. as you develop you rpla nning? Who else do you coo.rdinate your planning with as it moves from concept to implementation?

166


4.16

5

April17, 2019

Senator Joni K. Ernst United State Senate 730 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

RE: Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Management of the 2019 Missouri River Basin Flooding· Statement

Statement

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Senator Ernst and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments today.

Three weeks ago, l had the opportunity to travel by ground and air to see firsthand the devastation to Iowa's agricultural producers in Fremont, Mills, and Pottawattamie counties. Joining over the course of those two days were U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, Bill Northey and U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley.

It's estimated that our state suffered over $2.14 million in agricultural devastation. Approximately 416,000 acres of cropland across sil< counties in Iowa were flooded. In Fremont, 346 farms and over 75,386 acres of farmland have damage. Here in Mills county, where you hold this hearing today, initial estimates show damage to 2.17 farms and over 32.,764 acres of cropland. From just Fremont and Mills counties alone, over 390,000 bushels of soybeans and 1.24 million bushels of corn were lost. Of those acres damaged, roughly 309,000 acres will be eligible for federal programs that help farmers and ranchers remove debris left by natural disasters. The USDA Farm Services Agency (FSAl estimated that the program will need about $34 million to clean up the fields.

While the region prepared and rebuilt after the floods of 2011, a perfect storm of melting snow, a "bomb cyclone" and rain pushed these floods over the top. With little warning, farmers and agribusinesses were placed in peril. The catastrophic damages to private property, farmland, and infrastructure, including roads, bridges and railways, gave a gut-punch to farmers suffering from five years of low commodity prices. It is also important to many producers in the area that the Army Corps of Engineers prioritize the fixing of more than 40 levee breaches. levees that weren't

167


4.16

6

breached are severely eroded from overflowing water and are also in need of repair. My office

continues to be in constant communication with USDA leadership, especially with Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and FSA, on how best to deploy resources to help those

impacted.

As Iowa farmers prepare for the 2019 planting season, soil temperature and weather conditions

remain top-of-mind but so is the pain our producers are feeling along the Missouri River.

Thousands of acres of farmland are under water and even more acres will not be ready for

planting this season.lf any of us need reminder of the hurt our producers are feeling, just look at

the millions of bushels of flood-soaked grain spilling from torn open grain bins along the 1-29

corridor. This is grain that farmers were financially counting on to put this year's crop in the

ground. My hope is that we come together as local, state and federal leaders to provide long

term solutions to these communities.

While the road to recovery will be a long one, Iowans are resilient. I know these communities will

come back stronger than ever. In the short-term it is imperative that Congress passes disaster

relief funding to help our farmers recover and begin that rebuilding process. In the long-term, I

urge the committee to reevaluate what the Army Corps of Engineers priorities are when it comes

to the management of the Missouri River.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on this important matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Naig Secretary of Agriculture

,e.. IOWAOfPARTMENl \lf ~~ AGRICULTURE &

~(/; LAND STEWARDSHIP

168


4.16

7

THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

April17, 2019 Written Testimony for the

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works "Oversight of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers Management

Of the 2019 Missouri River Basin Flooding"

The lzaak Walton League of America (League) appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the topic: "Oversight of the Army Corps' Management ofthe 2019 Missouri River Basin Flooding."

Introduction The League, founded in 1922, has 40,000 members in 200 chapters across the country. Our members are avid recreationists that fish, hunt, and enjoy living in the Missouri River basin. The river plays a major role in our members' daily lives. The League looks to collaborate with all interests in the basin to find science-based, common sense solutions that work with the Missouri River rather than fighting against it.

The Missouri River basin encompasses land in 10 states, covering one-sixth of the continental United States. The Missouri is America's longest river and it's one of the most altered ecosystems on earth. Many of the alterations were made following passage of the 1944 Flood Control Act (FCA). The FCA created eight authorized purposes: flood control, hydropower, recreation, fish and wildlife, irrigation, water supply, water quality, and navigation. These purposes- by their individual water needs- have been, and will continue to be, in direct conflict with each other.

The Missouri River today is far different than the "Big Muddy" explored by Lewis and Clark. Currently 35 percent of the river is impounded by six massive main stem reservoirs and 33 percent is artificially channelized in the 735 mile Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Louis, Missouri.

With creation of the six dams and the BSNP, millions of acres of the river's historic aquatic and terrestrial habitat were destroyed. This included many of the river's braided side channels, chutes, wetlands, islands, sandbars, and backwaters, as well as much of the natural floodplain and upland forest. Historically, these vital habitats made the Missouri River one of the richest ecosystems on earth. Today, the man-made alterations are so significant that the river is now over 120 miles shorter between Sioux City and St. Louis then it was prior to completion of the BSNP.

While some habitat recovery efforts are ongoing, the League, especially our members in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota, believes much more must be done. We believe many more areas along the river need restoration and conservation projects. Additional habitat restoration could provide critical habitat for over 85 native fish species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon.

More than 140 year-round and migratory bird species, including the bald eagle and the endangered least tern and piping plover live along the river. We believe habitat restoration efforts will help reduce future flood risk, improve water quality, provide high-quality recreation, and highlight the natural, scenic, and historical resources found along the river.

169


4.16

8

The League respectfully asks your serious consideration of the following topics:

Overall Missouri River Management The League appreciates the paradox the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) faces each year related to water management on the Missouri River. Flood control is the only congressionally authorized purpose that requires the Corps to remove water from the reservoir system. The other seven authorized purposes require the Corps to store water in the reservoir system.

Another complex management issue annually facing the Corps is that only 53 percent of the 530,000 square mile Missouri River Basin is regulated by the six mainstem reservoirs. This leaves roughly half (280,000 square miles) of the basin largely unregulated. This unregulated area of the lower basin is subject to regular flooding regardless of the Corps' Annual Operating Plan (AOP) or any implemented Corps water management action.

The League encourages the Corps to increase communication to educate the public that the Corps does not and cannot control runoff in the entire basin. Despite the agency's best efforts and management, periodic devastating flooding will continue to occur along reaches of the lower Missouri River.

2019 will be remembered for two extreme late winter storms, Ulmer and Wesley. The storms resulted in heartbreaking flooding that caused widespread damage and destruction of personal property and public and private infrastructure. The storms dumped tremendous amounts of moisture on already heavily saturated and still frozen soils across a wide area of the basin.

Some critics of the Corps' management have stated the Missouri River can't handle the "same volume" of water as it has in the past. But a look at the data from this year tells a different story. Following Ulmer in mid-March, an all-time record amount of runoff, nearly four times the monthly average, came into portions of the lower Missouri River. This runoff greatly exceeded the previous record March runoff set in 1952 which was before the reservoir system was completed.

The National Weather Service (NWS) reported Iowa had the wettest one year period (April of 2018 to March of 2019) ever recorded. This March was the 61

h wettest ever recorded in Nebraska. The runoff above Sioux City, Iowa in March and April this year was 19 million acre feet (mal)- 11 mal in March and 8 mal in April. For comparison, the average annual runoff in upper basin above Sioux City is 25.3 mal.

The League firmly believes this year's flooding was not caused in any way by the Corps' management of the river and data bears that out. The flooding was not caused by the amount of water the Corps stored, or didn't store, in the Missouri River Reservoir System. The huge amount of precipitation from the two winter storms fell largely in the area of the basin where the Corps has no control on how much, or how fast, the runoff gets into the lower river.

Flows from many of the tributaries in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota run directly into the lower Missouri. Much of that tributary runoff enters the Missouri below Gavins Point Dam, the last dam on the reservoir system. The NWS' forecast for the lower Missouri River is for flood stage to linger until at least late May. Many tributaries are running high and the James River in South Dakota will be above major flood stage for weeks to come. Continuing spring rains will further exacerbate localized flooding in the lower basin.

Blaming Corps water management for the 2019 floods is simply not based on scientific fact. Neither does assigning fault to the Corps help advance the discussion citizens in the basin and across the nation must have concerning the Missouri River. In the face of a changing climate and record precipitation, we must resolve what has to be done so the Missouri River is once again able to handle high flow events.

170


4.16

9

The League believes many of the critics' arguments actually present great evidence for the Corps to work to reconnect the Missouri back to some of its natural floodplain. Time and time again, the Missouri River demands more room to roam. As a nation, we can continue to try and tame America's longest river with an artificial navigation channel and a very constricted levee system, but the Missouri proves time and time again it will break free.

The American taxpayer deserves that the Corps "re-think" rather than just "rebuild" the damaged areas in the lower basin. The League and other conservation and environmental organizations believe the river needs many more levee setbacks and additional top-width widening projects such as the Deer Island Project north of Omaha-Council Bluffs. These projects provide more areas for the river to expand during high flow periods. This will help lower crests during high flows and provide much needed flood protection.

The League also strongly urges the Corps to fully fund and complete the goals outlined in the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project for the BSNP. The Mitigation Project continues to fall further and further behind the project's goals and objectives. We ask that the Mitigation Project be restarted and fully funded. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is needed to give the river more room to roam and the added space and flood plain connectivity will lessen future flood impacts in the lower basin.

To successfully complete necessary recovery, the League supports the use of fee title acquisition of land from willing sellers. We believe fee-title acquisition should be used when major restoration work is needed to improve the ecological functions of the river. We urge Congress to appropriate the funds needed to get the Corps back on track with the Mitigation Project outlined in prior Water Resource Development Acts (WDRAs) and other legislation for the lower basin.

Future Missouri River Management The original Missouri River Master Manual called for a 3,000 foot floodplain from Sioux City to Kansas City and a 5,000 foot floodplain from Kansas City to the mouth near St. Louis. Sadly, this requirement was never implemented. The League has repeatedly urged the Corps to work with local governments to establish and enforce zoning ordinances that will provide for a much wider and resilient floodplain. We firmly believe this action will save tax dollars and produce a healthier river.

Reconnecting the floodplain will naturally produce needed habitat for fish and wildlife, thereby aiding recovery of threatened and endangered species. The naturally created habitat will also provide increased recreational opportunities for families in the basin. That increased activity will boost the recreation industry and have a positive economic impact while creating many additional year-round jobs along the river.

Huge hydrological swings are common in the Missouri River Basin. The League believes these dramatic swings demonstrate a very urgent need for a much more flexible approach in the dayto-day management of the Missouri River. We believe the basin needs policies that are much more adaptable to the actual basin hydrologic conditions. We support updating the Missouri River Master Manual to allow additional in-season adjustments to water releases. This would enable the Master Manual to accurately match the actual runoff as each year unfolds. Critically important water management decisions, that ultimately impact all the residents of the basin, should not follow a "locked in stone policy" set months before the actual conditions are realized.

Millions of people in the basin depend on the Missouri River and its resources for their livelihood. The river is a very important component to their quality of life. The human demand, as well as the overall health of the river, require a more modern and adaptable approach to water management than the current Master Manual policies permit. In our opinion the current twice a year review of water in storage in the reservoir system used to determine navigation support and season length does not adequately address the needs of the basin's residents.

171


4.17

0

Additional timely reviews throughout the spring and summer months are urgently needed to accurately determine the proper amount of releases from the reservoir system every year. More releases are needed in a wet year, while less will be required in a dry year.

The League would enthusiastically support a comprehensive review of the eight Missouri River Authorized Purposes outlined in the FCA. We believe the eight purposes need to be thoroughly reviewed to determine what's best for the American taxpayer, as well as the needs for people in the Missouri River basin. This review, as authorized in the Missouri River Authorized Purpose Study (MRAPS), would incorporate to day's economic values and priorities, instead of being limited to those included in the FCA. In essence, the Corps is still operating the Missouri River on a business plan that's more than 70 years old. The Missouri River is very different today than what was envisioned for it when the FCA was passed. Some purposes greatly exceed the original FCA expectations, while others have fallen well short of the FCA's original expectations.

Recent studies by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks shows the annual economic benefit from recreation on the Missouri River in South Dakota is worth more than $107 million annually. Additionally, the Missouri Department of Conservation and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission showed a $68 million annual economic impact from recreation from Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis. This tremendous economic impact exceeds- by more than ten times- the FCA's expectation. The recreation industry on the Missouri River is a major economic engine and is critical for the local, regional, and national economies. A review of the eight authorized purposes would help to streamline the Corps' future operational expenses and bring Missouri River management into the 21st century.

The Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) The League supports the Corps' efforts in the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP). We believe the three federally listed species- the pallid sturgeon, least tern, and piping plover- are "poster children" for what is largely an unhealthy river. The League firmly believes the Corps' efforts to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) had absolutely nothing to do this year's flooding.

2019 has been very similar to 1993 when devastating flooding largely happened in the lower, unregulated basin. Again this year much of the flood water and heartbreaking damage has occurred downstream of the flood storage provided by the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. Sadly, the massive damage this spring would have happened even if the Corps had completely drained the reservoir system prior to the late winter storms hitting the basin.

The League strongly encourages the enactment of many of the recommendations for improving the floodway in the lower basin developed following the massive floods in 1993 and 2011. These recommendations include the fore mentioned reconnection of the river to its natural floodplain, additional levee setbacks, top-width widening projects and removal of pinch-points on the river. All of these steps will greatly reduce the river's stage during high flow events and provide much needed flood protection.

Restoring a portion of the millions of acres of lost riverine habitat will not only benefit the listed species, but also help the 51 of 67 native fish species currently listed as rare or declining on the river. This could prevent additional species from being listed as threatened or endangered.

The Corps worked very hard to develop the new Missouri River Recovery Management Plan and accompanying Science and Adaptive Management Plan (MRRMP/SAMP). This federal action includes activities designed to avoid jeopardizing the existence of the Missouri River species protected under the ESA. It's conducted pursuant to the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, 1999, and 2007.

172


4.17

1

This authority includes Section 3176 of WRDA 2007 that expanded the Corps' authority for recovery and mitigation activities in the upper basin states of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All these authorities have been combined into the MRRP.

The League has expressed concerns about the Corps' preferred alternative, Alternative 3, selected in the MRRMP/SAMP. We think this alternative relies too heavily on mechanical construction of habitat and therefore is too dependent on increased, steady federal funding. We believe this leaves needed habitat and species recovery extremely vulnerable to future federal budget cuts, lowering the probability of achieving species and river recovery.

Instead we would rather see the Corps incorporate additional recovery options that would, in selected areas, allow the river do some of the work of recovering fish and wildlife habitat on its own. The League believes the Corps should strive to change the status quo on the Missouri River. We strongly urge the use of recovery alternatives that will ensure the long-term survival and recovery of self-sustaining populations of the listed and other native species. We believe this would greatly improve the overall health of the river, reduce flood risk, and increase water quality and recreation opportunities.

The League supports the ongoing efforts of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC), authorized in section 5018 of WRDA 2007. The League, an original member of the MRRIC, continues to have a high level of involvement with the committee and its work groups. As per the MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures, the League's view and opinions do not represent the views of the committee. The MRRIC is made up of a variety of basin stakeholder interests, as well as state, tribal, and federal representatives. The committee provides guidance to the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on current and future actions of the MRRP for the listed species on the river. Through MRRIC, the Corps is collaborating with tribes, federal and state agencies, and stakeholders throughout the Missouri River basin.

The League believes a thorough analysis of all the recovery actions through the SAMP will ensure that all future management decisions and actions are continuously improved. Updating and incorporating what is ascertained through regular and comprehensive scientific monitoring of the river will provide benefits to the listed species and lead to the recovery of portions of the habitat lost and/or destroyed along the Missouri River.

The recovery projects have been a boon for the river. Anglers, hunters, boaters, birdwatchers, and others have been using these areas proving the old adage "if you build it, they will come." In addition to the economic boost from outdoor recreation, restoration projects provide broader economic benefits throughout the entire region. To perform this work, the Corps contracts with private companies, creating jobs that inject money into local economies through purchases of materials, fuel, food, and lodging. With robust annual funding for the MRRP, the Corps could implement more of these important economic and ecological restoration projects.

The League also favors of the Corps working on restoration projects with state and tribal agencies, including the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and the many tribal governments along the river. The Corps should also look for additional support through other private and public partnerships and volunteers throughout the basin.

Stream and Soil Moisture Gauges for Runoff Forecasting The League commends the Corps for engaging the NWS, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and other federal, state and local agencies to increase monitoring of plains and mountain snowpack water content, soil moisture, and frost depth. This will greatly aid in gaining a more accurate estimate of the annual runoff.

173


4.17

2

We strongly urge the Corps to request the needed funding from Congress to complete this network of modern stream and soil moisture gauges. The network would accurately monitor tributary flows and the snow water equivalent in the upper plains. This enhanced monitoring system would enable forecasting annual runoff in the basin with the best data available. We also encourage the Corps and other agencies to incorporate data dealing with climate change and its impacts, both wet and dry, when completing future runoff scenarios and developing the AOP.

Sedimentation The League continues to have serious concerns about the amount of accumulated sediment in the six main stem reservoirs. We urge the Corps to work with state and federal agencies to reduce sediment entering the reservoirs by encouraging landowners to utilize conservation programs and methods to greatly reduce erosion. The accumulated sediment decreases reservoir storage capacity, negatively impacts flood control, decreases hydropower capabilities, impacts fish reproduction, and recreation access.

Summary The members of the lzaak Walton League of America believe the Missouri River is a national treasure and one of the nation's most unique rivers. We think the Missouri River is well worth protecting and enhancing for this and future generations. The League believes a healthy Missouri River will benefit the entire nation as it will be an incredible economic engine that will create more jobs and tax revenue for all levels of government.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully Submitted,

a£~ Paul Lepisto lzaak Walton League of America Missouri River Initiative 1115 South Cleveland Avenue Pierre, SD 57501-4456 [email protected] 605-224-1770 or 605-220-1219

174


4.17

3

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DG205l0-6175

My name is Jim Kocller. I lim aboard membet ofUMIMRA (Upper Mississippi Illinois Missouri River Association) •. The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be able to see what inadequate flood control looks like. I applaud the committee getting put in the countly to hearfrom those affected. Our countly's major waterways provide marty jobs, eeonomic opportUnities, and efficient transportation. This sector of America needs good protection from flooding. This is v~ achievable, as levees and other structures are not difficult to build. J fimn and live behind a levee. Please consider looking and supporting a long term plan to help prevent flooding.

Jim Koeller 22239 245 av. New Canton, IL 62356

175


4.17

4

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington. DC 20510-6175

Dear Committee Members:

From what I know about the flooding in Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and Missouri this spring, it was kind of a freak thing with frozen ground, abUndant plains snow pack and too muCh warm rain occurring in the same area with little flood prevention facilities; This does not say that the USACE and NWS and local emergency managen1ent agencies could not )lave done a better job of alerting the public.

What would help in the future is a mixture of reservoirs, channelkation ofrivers and raising levees. As. for reservoirs, they need to bold water for several.months. Structures that slow discharge down, but do nothold water for later.release, will not work. Channelization requires constant maintenance too.and needs to be continued wherever it presently exists. As for raising levees, this is a viable means. in the lower basin on the main stem and tributaries. An option here would be completing the Pick-Sloan project to St. Louis.

Joseph B. Gibbs, P .E. 1115 Club Meadows Lane Columbia, MissoUri 65203

176


4.17

5

Swope Park Industrial Association;

Peter 5ch.,avi j

Und\.alf S.Qurdan l

l Historic We <it Bottoms j

"::;;::~1 Bi-St<Jte Turkev Creek I

Frank We<:~therford

::~~,~rF:;:; l · »np0».,

B!ueo VaHE"y lndu">.tnal As"io<:lation!

Shawn L.c~ubv 1 f- !

! . John Parn~~ l

Pa'it l'n!sld€>nts. Ad'liisory Council~ Deuc'f:livers lam Rohf.'ftS, i • >' t H

Dear mem~rs of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committees

The Kansas City Industrial Council is comprised of six regional industrial districts1 representing over 2t900 businesses, 70)000 employees~ and annual sales in excess of 12.5 Billion dollars. In collaboration with local, state and federal agencies, KctC focuses on critical issues necessary to create and maintain a safe and favorable climate lor development in the region's industrial areas. Recognizing the importance of Kansas City's levee system in protecting regional investment and infrastructure crucial to the nation's interstate commerce needs, KCIC's members and

other stakeholders were grateful when both Phases of the Kansas City Levees project was funded through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Supplemental Appropriations Bill related to disaster relief. Though recognized as a single project, Phases 1 & 2 were authorized separately, preventing funds from being moved across the project's phases and reducing flexibility in the project's design and construction. Though we will continue to stress that Phases 1 & 2 of the Kansas Cities levees be combined into a single authorization in the next WRDA, there are steps that should be taken now to lessen the risk of flooding.

River flow management is crucial in mitigating flood risk. Management efforts of the Missouri River can be compromised when one of the 8 authorized purposes lor the River is given priority over maintaining consistent river levels. Because of the uncertainty of severe and

frequent rain events and their contribution to the unregulated flows from tributaries that feed the reservoirs and the Missouri River, it is critical that reservoir levels not be kept artificially high. If an authorizec purpose is allowed to significantly impact river flows, other authorized purposes are jeopardized by creating conditions that drastically increase the risk of levee breaches and flooding that threaten our people, wildlife and economy.

The Kansas City Industrial Council appreciates your efforts in providing guidance on the management of reservoir levels to prevent flooding from the Missouri Rlller.

177


4.17

6

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Sen;.l.te Office. Building Washington, DC 20510-6175

Dear Committee Membc.rs:

Tharlk you for the opportunity to present comments in regard to the flooding and management in the Missouri R;iver Basin. My name is Lanny Fnlk:es and I am a 69 y~r old fourth generation farmer, having funned in Buchanan and Platte County, Missouri all of my life. Our farming operation is located in the Missouri River bottomlands and I serve as vice-chairman of Missotiri Levee and Drainage District Association. I am President of Halls Levee District which protects 18,500 acres in Buchanan County, Missouri and Secretary/Treasurer of Rushville-Sugar Lake Levee Association which protects 8,500 acres in Buchanan and Platte County, Missouri.

Rushville-Sugar Lake Levee was overtopped and breached in 2011 and most recently in 2019 flooding fertile fannland, leaving large deposits of sand and scouring fields. Numerous homes at Lewis and Clark Village, Rushville, Missouri were flooded along with homes and businesses in Winthrop, Missouri. Missouri State. highways 45/273 and highway 59 were overtopped and closed .Highway 59 is a major highway crossing the Missotiri River into Atchison, KanSas. Numerous Buchanan and Platte County public roads were inundated, damage. and remain closed for numerous days in..2011 and for 2019 the timeframe continues. People's lives. are threatened and one individual drowned in floodwaters in Platte.County, Missouri. Continuing high river levels make damage estimates of levees, homes, business, and farmland assessments difficult to impossible in some areas. Being very fearful of continUed flooding as the next two to three months bring the potential for more high waters. Recovery is on hold due to these conditions. A large portion of the farmland acres will not be planted in 2019 and debris clean.up/land recovery cannot begin until Missouri River levels recede and allow recovery ofland restoration and levee rebuilding

Halls Levee District was not overtopped or breached in either 2011 or 2019 but in each year seep waters from high Missouri River levels coupled With li>cal rainfall have caused 4,000to 6;000 acres to be covered with these impounded waters standing on croplands. Even a few inches of waters either stops any planting of the fields or ifthe crop was planted previous to the flooding, the saturation causes the crop to fail. If the high river levels are present in the fall season harvesting is stopped. These conditions cause problems in years of high river levels even though flooding does not occur. When Missouri River levels are at or above a 125 to 13.0 gage reading at St.. Joseph, Missouri.the gravity discharge sluice gates have to be closed which stops any drainage from the protected side ofthe levees thtough the drainage tubes in. the levee system flowing into the Missouri River. This situation creates impounded waters on croplands and public roads. In 2018 the sluice gates remained continually closed from mid April through the first week of December. Fortunately, our area received smaller than normal rainfall through the late spring and summer months but in early October rainfall ofeight to ten inches occurred creating large bodies of waters due to sluice gates being closed. Harvest came to a standstill in some areas and some acreage remained unharvested. Winter months did not allow harvesting and the early flooding of20!9 has destroyed these crops and they will never be harvestable. I

178


4.17

7

personally had 300 acres of crops lost from 2018 crop year. Had the Missouri River levels been lower to allow adequate drainage; the waters could have drained and crops harvested. This scenario is up and down the. Missouri River basin; not just in this area. Several acres in numerous areas remained unharvested

The losses from the 2019 floodingare still to be determined as assessments are made and th:e losses in total wi!Lbe determined .. Farmers, homeowners, businesses, government entities, have suffered enormous catastrpphic losses to property and livlihoods from this 2019 event. Some may never recover from this terrible flooding. Changes made in the operation of the Missouri River from2004 Master Manual have in my opinion raised the liklelihood of repeated flooding as has been proven plus will continue unless a collaborative effort begins to make flood control the number one priority in Missouri River operations by the USACE. This is .a huge endeavor; I realize, but the government needs to step up and protect the citizens that are so damaged by these floods, I also am aware that it takes water. to cause flooding but what we do to manage these waters to minimize the liklihood of flooding must begin now.

Possible changes could include releasing more water through the dam systems. in winter months to allow more storage in spring early sul!imerhigh water situations. In my opinion the river does not carry fue water it once did and runs slower with rainfall events having raised. river levels over 10 feet in24 to 30 hours time frame. Notching of wing dikes next to the river blmks has caused river banks to cave off into the river depositing silt into the rivet and slowing the flow. Restoring thte wing dikes. as they were previous to notchhrg allowed the wing dikes to function for directing the clliTent of the water toward the channel and helping to create a self scouring channel. Side shoots on lands purchased with federal dollars have been created allowing these spoils to flow into the river when they were created also using federal tax monies. Possibly these chutes could be closed on the upstream end. The. river levels seem to recede at a slower pace than previous to the 2004 master manual changes; adding to my belieffue river does not carry the volume of water it used to. Maintenance to river structures has been little in the past sevetal years with the primary focus since 2004 being for benefit of fish and wildlife, endangered species, environmental issues. The result of these changes seems to be evident in increased flooding and a high potential for increased regularity of flooding. These changes and actions are detrimental to fue lower JIJissouriRiver Basin States. Notching of dikes, sl<:>w water habitat, side shoots, rearing complexes and the implementation of this work has cost millions of dollari; With little proof of benefits to the species. Having been involved with river issues my entire life I fi11dit very difficult to accept fuat these endangered speCies driven issues are more important than humans.

In summary I would hope the government would put aside party differences and utilize efforts to work toward restoring flood control to the priority in protecting out citizens. While I understand th?.t flooding cannot be eliminated completely; we must work. diligently to. minimize flooding risks. Our government needs to take action; now, not assume this will not happen again, because !.believe flooding will become .a regularity if change is not implemented. By just lowering the river levels a few feet can. save levees from being overtopped in.many instances . A few inches in river level crests can be the difference. in overtopping or the levees holding. The resources that our great country has: must be utilized for the benefit ofimprovement. As we need tremendous amounts of monies for recovery of various damages· after flood events please consider policy

179


4.17

8

changes towards flood control that could reduce flooding and save monies and spare our citizens

the agony that flooding brings. Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

Lanny Frakes 133371 SW State Route KK\ Rushville, MO 64484 cell phone# 816-390-2760 e-mail [email protected]

180


4.17

9

Dear EPW committee:

I farm around Missouri Valley, Iowa. We wentthru 2011 flood. Eight years later the same thing is happening, only worse! The is corp is saying they are going by the book. The dams were put in for flood control, maybe they need to run without the book,· or go back to the old book. They had to. know how much snow melt wovld comJ3 down. I will agree they couldn't predict the speed of the melting, but. running the river low all winter wasn't the right thing to do. I believe they ran the river at 14 feet. If they could have run higher it wouldn't have stopped the flood, but it might have had less damage ... Some people have lost everything~. They can't be made whole again. The lives and livestock that have been lost. the corp should be accountable. The farm ground that has been lost and will not be.farm~ble again. The dams were built for flood control period! Thank you,

Larry Meyer Missouri Valiey, Iowa

181


4.18

0

Luke \Veigel 39177 Stanton rd. Rushville MO 64484

I am a Farmer landowner and levee board member in the Missouri R.iver bottoms in the area between Rushville and Weston Missouri. I serve on the levee board of the Rushville sugar lake and am president of th.e levee board for bean lake l.eveeassociation as well as president of drainage district I in Platte County.

We have endured major damages in the recent flooding events. The damages from this flood may be e.qual too or exceed the damage we had in 201 l. We have multi breaches in all the levee systems that protect ground that we own and farm.

Our family owns one particular farm that has been destroyed from the recent flooding. It was damaged severely in 20 II and we put the money and effort into restoring it back-to what it once was; It is now in worse shape than was after2011 and I don'tthink it's worth spending the effort and money into fixing it this time.

The reason the Missouri River Dam system were built to my knowledge was for Flood control. How have we allowed for this to go by the wayside for the benefit offish and wildlife.

We h11veseen 2 historic floods in the past 8 years, and had threatsoffloodsevety year in between. We were very lucky to have not of flooded in the summer of 2018 with the. amount of water that was being released out of Gavin's pt. throughout the summer~

I think the Corps engineers needs to reopen the master manual and make some major changes. With the extreme weather patterns that we face today the should be able to compile the data and. come to a realization that the 16.4 million acre feet sto.rage space they try to. o.btain for flood control is not enougb anymore. l' d like to see corps engineers raise the amount of storage capacity fo.r flood control.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this comment. I hope that something can be changed to get us better p[Otection in the years to come. I realiZe that high water and floods are going to be something from time to time. we're going to have. to deal with along the river, but they are getting more frequent and more severe every time. I want to continue Farm and make my Jiving off ground in the Missouri River bottoms but We can't keep having this devastation so often.

ThankS,

Luke Weigel

182


4.18

1

The Corps of Engineers, who often claim to have control over every pond, Jake, or mud-puddle holding water in these United States somehow

rnissed monitoring the darn on the Spencer Reservoir of the Niobrara River

in Nebraska. The failure of the Spencer Dam, and subsequent opening of

the floodgates on the Gavin's Point Reservoir Dam began a cascade of

flooding in the Missouri River Basin never before seenln my 68 years on

the river. The devastation caused by this event Will go down in the history

books as a rnajor failure ofthose charged with managing the waters of the

United States. There is a svstem of flood control structures, reservoirs and dams on

the Missouri River to prevent this type of disaster from occurring. Those

only work if they are managed for the purpose of flood control.

The Corps of Engineers has deviated from the original purpose and

design ofthe flood control system. In doing so, they have destroyed lives,

families,farms, businesses, livestock, infrastructure, and communities in

the MissouriRiver Basin. People have died because ofthefloodingc;aused by the current management of the Missouri River flood control system by the Corps of Engineers.

The hardworking families of the corn belt feel like they have been

targeted for extinction by the Corp's management of the river.

Please, please, please return to the original intent of the Missouri

River Master Ma.nual and operate the flood control system to protect the lives of people, livestock; farms, businesses, and communities in the Missouri River Basin.

MaxHockemeier, President Ray Lafayette Levee District

183


4.18

2

Apri!12,2019

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6175

Members of the Committee:

3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson Ctty, MD 65109

The quick onset of the recent floodwaters along the Missouri River meant many farmers and members of the Missouri Com Growers Association (MCGA) did not have time to remove grain from storage in potential flood areas. Unfortunately, this grain is not covered by crop insurance or other programs. For many along the river, flooding and losing stored grain means they will be losing at least two years of income.

Meanwhile, farmers and rural communities are facing !he threat of more flooding along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and its tributaries while they recover from this latest event. With this top of mind, the conversation around river management needs to return to flood control and navigation. The sudden onslaught of water re-emphasizes the continued impacts of mis-priori!ization of management objectives. Flood control and navigation are the originally intended priorities of Missouri River management, yet budget numbers continually tell a different story as funds for fish and wildHfe drastically outweigh funds for flood control, navigation and operations, and maintenance.

Constructed by the Corps under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unproven habitat projects continue to be built along the Missouri River. MCGA is not opposed to the recovery of species and believe, if done with a science-based approach, can easily co-exist with flood control and navigation. Unfortunately, the track record of experimental projects continues to be built with no scientific backing. These projects have repeatedly failed to help the species and negatively impacted the navigation channel due lo increased silting and destabilization of the streambank.

A shallower navigation channel means less capacity for flood waters as well. From a predictability standpoint, reinvestment in stream gauges and investment in snowpack gauges could go a long way in helping predict and therefore prepare for flooding. Stream gauge flooding has been cut in recent years, hamstringing the Corps ability to accurately predict flooding.

Page 1 of2

184


4.18

3

MGGA urges the members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works to reinforce flood control and navigation as the top priorities when holding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife S.e111ice accountable and setting the budget for Missouri River management.

Regards,

Mark Scott President Missouri Corn Growers Association

185


4.18

4

MISSOURI LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION

TOM WATERS, CHAIRMAN 36257 HIGHWAY Z ORRICK, MISSOURI640n (816) 770~5562

LANNY FRAKES, VJCE-PRESIOENT 1l371 SW ST .. RT. KK RUSHVILLE, MISSOURI B4484 (816). 688-7820

CARL LENSING CHAIRMAN EMERITUS 447 HIGHWAY 94 RHINELAND, M!SSOURI65049 (573) 236-4577

Twitter. @missOI.Jrilevees Website· WWW,MLDDAorg

WRITTEN TESTIMONY: UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS J'IELD OVERSIGHT HEARING

DAN KUENZEL, SECRETARY 7385 BLUFF ROAD WASHINGTON, M!SSOUR163':>90

(818)239-1536

ROBERT J. VINCZE, ATTORNE'f P.O. BOX 792 ANDOVER. KANSAS 67002 {303)204-a207

ON THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT OJ' THE 2019 MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FLOODING

Chairman Barrasso and members of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony for the record of your hearing regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers• management of the 2019 Missouri River Basin flooding. As chairman of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association. I represent levee and drainage districts, businesses, associations and individuals interested in the activities and issues surrounding the Missouri River and its tributaries. I understand the importance of this committee's work as it relates to flood control and the protection of human lives and property. I am honored to have this opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the levee association's membership and fellow Missourians who have been impacted by flooding this year.

I am a seventh generation Missouri farmer. My family fanning operation produces com, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa in the highly productive bottom lands along the Missouri River. As president of three local levee and drainage districts, I know and understand the importance levees and flood control projects play in protecting the lives and property in my community and communities across our nation.

2019, has been a difficult Spring for people living and working along the Missouri River. The Missouri River system was overwhelmed by inflows well above any seen before. The extraordinary runoff this Spring has proved to be too much for the Anny Engineers to handle and the result was major flooding from Omaha to Kansas City along the River.

The extreme snowfall and heavy rain events in the Upper Missouri River Basin have been blamed for the flood event, but I believe there is more to the story that needs to be told. With only 6% of the Missouri River Reservoir System dedicated to exclusive flood control, the system cannot provide adequate flood protection. Sixteen percent of the system's storage is dedicated to multiple uses and flood control, but the Corps allows this storage to fill in the spring. This 16% should be added to the exclusive flood control pool to allow for a full 22% of exclusive storage to protect from future flooding. In addition, the Corps of Engineers should make better use of the Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs in the upper basin. These reservoirs are not properly managed for flood control.

There is a great need to improve flood control infrastructure along the Missouri River. Levee improvements have not been made over time and the flood control system is suffering from years of neglect, as fish and wildlife programs have become the focus of Missouri River management. Flood control infrastructure has not kept up with other development in the basin.

More water is reaching the River faster

Let me provide an example: I am sure each congressional district across the country has areas in it like I am about to describe. This area has a four-lane highway running through it. Along the highway you will find fast

186


4.18

5

food restaurants. A McDonalds on the right and a Weney's may be on the left. In the area, you will find several other restaurants, strip malls, and shops. You will likely find a large grocery store chain and Home Depot or Lowes. You might fmd a Wal-MartSuper Store on one side of the highway and a nrget on the other. You know the llt!'as and I'm sure you have them in the communities you serve. Surrounding this shopping area are neighborhoods full of homes, schools, churches and doctor offices. Areas and neighborhoods like I have described have been developed across. our country over the past twenty to thirty years. Not just in the bottomland, but also in upland areas with rolling hills. These. areas contain a tremendous amount of concrete and pavement.

When rain falls in these areas, the rain hits a roof, parkirig lot, driveway or roadway and runs to a gutter and quickly into a sewer system, which directs it straight to the River. ThiJ:ty years ago, the same area was likely rolling pasture or farmland. When rain fell then, it soaked into the ground or ran slowly through grass and timber to the river. The result is, today water reaches our nations rivers faster and at greater volumes. We have not done anything to compensate for these increased flows coming faster to the rivers. and we are seeing the damaging effects now. Communities along the Missouri River have been flooded multiple times in. recent years.

While our flood control system bas been falling behind, the nation has spent millions upon millions of dollars on fish and wildlife projects. On th.e Missouri River, the Corps of Engineers has spent over $774.Mi!Hon since 2005 on the Missouri River Recovery Program and fish and wildlife projects. While.spendirig the equivalent of nickels and dimes on flood control, the Corps has spent over 314 of a billion dollars on fish and birds. This imbalance must be corrected if we are to proteCt communities and property along the nation's waterways.

It is time for the nation to i"nvest in flood control infrastructure across the country. When congress spends $20 Million on a levee or flood control project, the result is a levee or structure that can be seen and provides protection for people and property. On the otner hand, when congress spends $20 Million for fish and wildlife the result is, more often than not, 200-300 pages of reports from a study and a stack of hotel receipts from meetings and conferences.

Flood control projects create jobs and protect lives, Reducing spending on fish and wildlife projects fs an easy place for congress to trim the budget without harming the nation's economy. In today'~ weakened economy it makes sense to make inaprovements to our nation's flood control systems, which will put people to work and reduce future costly disaster recovery o;xpenses,

The Corps of Engineers follows orders

People tnroughout the Missouri River basin have been concerned about the failing flood control system for years. The people of tne M.issouri River Basin want and need change. They want to see flood conttol once again become the Corps of Engineers top priority for river tnanagemerit with less emphasis on fish and wildlife spending.

I believe there are only two things that can make the Cmps of Engineers place flood control as their top priority, I) Legislation or 2) U:gal Action. TestifYing at Corps of Engineers hearings, making phone calls, attending meetings or even pressure from our elected officials seems to have no effect on the Corps e>f Engineers.

The Corps of Engineers is the United States Army Corps of Engineers and as good soldiers do; they follow orders •. The Generals, Col1>nels, and Engineers within the Corps do what they are te>ld. Their orders come from you, United States Senators and Members of the United States House. of Representatives. Today, the orders being followed by the Corps of Engineers are about fish and wildlife. Flood Control has taken a backseat to one fish and two birds on the Missouri .River. These are their orders and these orders need to be changed!

In order for the Corps of Engineers to change their ways, Congress must act. This committee can start to turn things around by adjusting the Corps of Engineers' budget. By funding levee repairs and flood control projectS ahead of fish and wildlife projects, Congress can .and should direct the Corps of Engineers to focus on flood control. Congress has an opportunity to fund· flood control projects, create jobs and make real improvements in our economy. While doing so, the emphasis should be oil levees and structural improvements to the Missouri River system. If this committee only does one thing as a result of this hearing, inhould be to direct the Corps of

187


4.18

6

Engineers to make flood control their number one priority for the operation and maintenance of the Missouri River. Without flood control, nothing else matters.

Damaged levees must be repaired

I am very concerned about getting breached and damaged levees repaired. The Kansas City District Corps of Engineers Emergency Management Branch has identified 64 breaches on 13 levee systems, during the. 2019 flood event. In the Omaha District, there are 350 miles of levees with damage. There are 50 ccmfirmed breaches or partial breaches. It is critical for Missouri River levees to be repaired as soon as possible.

Farmers and landowners want to repair their land and put it back into production. Home and business owners want to make repairs and get their lives hack in order. Without levee protection, these people are taking incredible :risks. Crop insurance rates have tripled in areas with breached levees. This adds even more to the risks of planting without levee protection. Weather forecasts continue to be disturbing. NOAA forecasts indicate another year of above normal precipitation in the Missouri River Basin.

Highly productive farmland & national security

The bottomlands along our nation's rivers contain some ofthe inost productive farmland in the world. This valuable land produces a safe and inexpensive food supply for our nation. For every I 00,000 acres of river bouom grourid, farmers can produce enough Calories to feed 1.046 million people for an entire year. With a projected world population growth from 7.0 billion to 9.3 billion by 2030 (That is equivalent to doubling the population of current China and India), we have a humanitarian imperative to farm the land we currently have in production.

In three Missouri counties alone~ there is and estimated 178,000 acres flooded. If this !arid is not planted in 2019, the market value of the lost corn and soybean crop is projected to be over $95 Million. This does not include losses to any other crops, livestock or the loss of crops stored in the floodplain.

Keeping our most productive farmland in production is a matter of national security. Agriculture has always been and will remain the backbone of our country. U.S. citizens are spoiled with our. abundant and safe food supply; We tend to forget how important agriculture is to our economy and our strength as a world leader. Taking the rich bottomland soils out of production weakens our national security. These soils produce food, fiber •nd fuel. Safe, plentiful and inexpensive food and renewable fuels produced in the floodplains across this country keep us strong.

American agriculture remains a shining light of hope and strength for our nation. rt is vitally important to keep our best soils in production and protect these important soils from flooding with levees. and flood control structures. Even if we were to remove all infrastructure from the floodplains, (homes, businesses, roads, power lines, pipe lines, bridges and mono), the remaining farmland alone is worth protecting with levees.

Flood Control has taken a back scat in discussions relating to our nation's rivers. Endangered species and habitat creation have become the focus of the Corps of Engineers. Congress must refocus the Corps of Engineers priorities and direct their efforts toward flood control and fixing levees. It can all start today with a renewed commitment from Congress to put .the Corps back to building and engineering, instead of spending time on studies, meetings, conference calls and senseless science experiments.

Your committee has important work to do. I appreciate your willingrieS.s to serve our country. I encourage you to push flood control forward, fund levee repairs and put the economic engine along the Missouri River back into motion. Members of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association and my friends and neighbors in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, South Dakota and Nebraska will be looking for you to begin tl1e recovery and rehabilitation process in the short term and make changes which will make flood control the number one priority on the Missouri River in the longer term.

Thank you,

Tom Waters, Chairman

188


4.18

7

Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association 36257 Highway Z Orrick, Missouri 64077

189


4.18

8

Missouri River Congressional Testimony Ajlli/17, 2019

The following testimony is.submittedby Missouri Governor Michael L Parson to the.United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for the Committee's Aprill7, 2019 Field Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' Management of the 2019 Missouri River Basil) Flooding

As the 57"' Governor of the greaditate of Missouri, I appreciate the Opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works about the impacts of this year's Missouri River flooding on Missourians and out hopeS for a smooth recovery and prevention of recurrence,

Missouri has participated for decades in discussions on management of t.he Missouri River system, l10wever, throughout this time we have continually been frustrated about the need for greater focus ·on flood conlrtll. It should not. be hard to realize why when neaily one•third of our state falls within flood plain and our state economy's number one industry is agriculture.

Despite our concern, Missouri has for the second time this decade seen destructive flooding hit our citizens along the Missouri River. The most recent flo.od, however, brings to the.fote yet again disastrous impacts that are occurring all too often along the Missouri River system.

Two weeks ago, I met with the Governors oflowa and Nebrliska to begin a conversation as to how the states .can work together to lead toward improving our flood protection iliftastl1lctilre and ilu]iroving the operation of the MisSouri River system for flood control.

That nieeting only further emphasized my belief that tile U.S Corps of Engineers should return to managing the river in a manner that clearly reflects the dominant congressionally authori:red pwposes of flood control and navigation. Additionally, if we are to ensure that the system is managed in a way that reflects the priorities of basin citi:rens, it is imperative that the states oft]ie Missouri River basin have direct input and that out recommendations are given due consideration.

1n !Ill fairness, while the Corps ofEngineers is the fpc.us of.much frustration as it relates to the agency's management of the Missouri River system, it is worth noting that many of the changes in the Corps management approach have been at the direction or urging of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se..Vice.

Discussion about .management of the system has cent~red for too long now on fish and wildlife species impacts, effectively prioritizing species habitat above not only the col)gressionally authorized dominant project purposes of flood control and navigation, but alsp above loss of human life arid property.

Missouri has spent time and effort year after year explainilig the negative impacts to flood control from proposed artificial spring riSes and experimental habitat projeets to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The continual focus on fish and wildlife issues ha.s dis.trncted the federal agencies from the discussion we need to be having' how can. the states of the Missouri River aasin work with Congress and the federal agencies to improve flood control and flood protection on a Missouri River system that has once again proven to be inadequate to protect our citizens?

I respectfully request that this Committee direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife SerVice to tal<e a, more pragmatic approach to protection ftsh and wildlife species that recognizes that there are ways of addressing these needs that do not put human life and property at risk.

190


4.18

9

I would also suggestthat thisCommittee<consider authorizing an independent review ofthe Corps' operations of the Missouri River system and the adequacy of the system itself as it pertains to flood controL Such a review should alsoinch,1de the identification of implementable solutions to improving flood protection and control in the Missouri River basin and should analyze the feasibility of actions such as:

- increasing flood storage capacities in existing reservoirs improving the flood conveyance capacity ofthe Missouri River channel below Gavins Point Dams

- what infrastructure Changes would be need to facilitate greater barge n<t-vigatioli

After flooding in. 2011, we saw many federal, state and local govenunents work quickly to ensure that. aid got to those that needed it, flood prevention structures were repaired, and there was a sense of overall cooperation to ease the seVerity of impacts to our citizens. My hope and optimism is that we will have that same experience in 2019, bi.rt an important part ofrepeati11g that success will be C<mgress' ability to work with us to expedite the delivery offederal aid as we recover- and I implore you to do that

Missouri, again, stands ready to assist this committee and the federal interests under its oversight to chart this new course for the MisSouri River system.

Out citizens cannot .continue to risk their liv~:s, homes, livestock, and futures on a flood-control system that is insuffiCient to protect them.

Ou beb<!lf of the State ofMis!;ouri, thank you fottbe opPortunity to submit testimony. Our state also appreciates the committee's role and oversight on these important topics. Thank you,

191


4.19

0

COMMENTS BY THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION

SUBMITTED TO: THE U.S; SENATE COMMITIEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

FOR A HEARING ON The U.S. Army Corps of Engin.eers' Manogement of the 1019 MfssouriRivet Basin Flooding

GLENWOOD,IOWAApril17, 2019

Thankyou for the opportunity to provide input and local; regional and. state leader Insight for flood control and the plight of our people,land and water.

We will.not attempt to address all the challenges to delivering effectiVe flood control where it makes economic sense, but will focus our thoughts on a veflj few areas to illustrate some of the challenges.

In the lower Mississippi River, the United States is a globally recognized leader in how to prQtect states and businesses from flooding with a room for the river concept that controls flooding and manages high and low water events in a manner that keeps commerce moving. We have been successful for 91. years a.nd the current return on investment is $80 to $1. Flood control m;~kes sense when the locals and the congress decide on an approach, and provide appropriate furiding and dear direction for federal agencies to deliver,

America'.s waterwi!VS are a bit like the government agencies that regulate therri. They are essential to our lives but tiln inflict severe damage when they exceed their boundaries. Midwestern citizens received an object lesson in this fact twenty-six years ago-when surging floodwaters in the Missouri and Upper Mississippi River basins swept across nine states. Commentators called this one of the worst weather events in US history. Six weeks of unrelenting rainfall submerged 31,000 sl:juare miles of land, destroyed 10,000homes and, despite mass evacuations, caused 47 deaths. Damages exceeded $15 billion. Only our levees and other flood control efforts throughout the Mississippi basin prevented another $20 biUion in damages, according to findings by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers {Army Corps). In the quarter~entury since, signifkant flood losses have been averted and the lilies and liVelihoods of people working the nation's most productive farmland have been protected many times over by the levees st;tndlng sentflj along our inland navigable waterways. Even so, we can do better. This region lacks art interstate plan CQnsisting of all available options to maximize the flood protection, economic and natural resource benefits of the upper Mississippi River and its tributaries.

In recent years we've received further lesson in the. destructive power of unconstrained forces, some of them were courtesy of the federal approach for the Missouri basin, Historically, the Army Corps has been an ally to state and local partners in mitigating harin from natural disasters. In the aftermath of the Great Flood. of '93, the Army Corps banded together with state and local authorities to build better levees. The Flood Controi.Acts of 1936 and 19441aid

192


4.19

1

the foundation for this cooperative effort, balancing federal support with respect for local experts who for generations have owned and operated the flood control and levee projects protecting their communities. But we're seeing that change.

Since the early 2000's, the Army Corps has imposed a new and. burdensome process on states and locali.ties seeking to improve their non-federally owned and operated projects. A statute intended to preserve navigation, the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, is now being applied-in place ofapplicable Federal Regulations-to "all manner" of civil works; Projects like the 17th Street Canal floodwall in New Orleans, which Hurricane Katrina easily overpowered; the 1st Street l.evee in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which ended up four feet underwater in 2008;and a small

percentage of the nation's levees, many along our great inland rivers protecting urbanized areas and farming communities, are facing increased federal scrutiny.

In the aftermath of the devastating 2019flood we are faced with the same lesson ... the real human and economic costs of waiting to fortify such cri~ical pieces of infrastructure. Under the Corps' new approach, levee work entirely funded and undertaken by locals Is now routinely taking years to approve-if it is approved at all. Those wanting to preserve or improve the level of flopd control and flood protection achieved for their communities in compliance With state and lo.callaws must now endure a labyrinthine federal process known as "Section 408 review", sometimes retroactively. Consisting of multiple steps, beginning with "Pre-Coordination Review" and ending with "Post-Permission Oversight," this represents what can be dreamt up when agencies seek to stretch their authority beyond congressional intent, and clearly exceeds the bounds of common sense. Rather than conjuring a regulatory oversight program of dubious legality, agency focus should be on what congess clearly intends, work governed and produced under a cost- benefit analysis with the insight of local people that own and work their land nourished by the rivers.

The burdensome Section 408 review procees has proven a nightmare, however, for the infrastructure projects that languish on the drawing board, placing people, property, and productivity in unnecessary jeopardy. That.is more than reason enough to reconsider the Corps' current policy. However, Section 408 review is stillmore regrettable given that its application to local flood control and flood protection works is not supported by law. like a flash flood, it appeared out of nowhere; the Army Corps simply conjured its onerous new requirement into existence, claiming authority from the more than century-old statute.lt's a classic-almost comical-example of overreach. The fact that it has gone largely untested is ironic, given the enormous energy that has been put into pulling back the 2015 "Waters ofthe U.S .. " rule, which expansively defined the waters that fall under the purview of the. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps. By comparison, Section 408 is a far worse offense.

The Constitution created retaining walls for our limited federal government and we must have the help ofthe Congress to keep agencies from spilling oved:hem. The Army Corps curre.nt actions mark a threatening departure from past practice in which it approached its role in flood control and prevention with a degree of public engineering humility. That was respected and appropriate. The vast majority of the nation's levees, after all, have been entirely built,

193


4.19

2

operated and maintained by non-federal entities. Even where the Army Corps acted as a partner in constructing or improving them, states retained a large degree of regulatory authority and local owner/operators were trusted with making critical flood decisions. With Section 408, however, the Army Corps has expanded its role beyond recognition, usurping the authority of lower governments and creating an inconsistent regulatory regime for local flood control and flood protection that is unworkable and likely to result in more flood damages.

With overwhelming legislation renewing the Army Corps' authority to maintain the nation's water infrastructure, we must remember that allowing agencies to define their own scope of jurisdiction is a dangerous game, particularly in this context, where failure is measured in lost lives, displaced families, and ruined businesses resulting in economic devastation.

As we have been reminded this year, the next "unprecedented» rainfall event is not a possibility, it is a certainty-and we must be ready to defend against another great flood. We need to restore the balance between federal authority and local decision-making that allowed the Midwest and our nation to become the world's breadbasket. We can do so, when our government forces are clearly directed by the Congress representing and working for the better ofthe nation's interests and the local people's productive energy.

People are suffering and communities are collapsing, it's time for clear direction and decisive action.

Thank you for allowing us to provide these comments.

Karin Jacoby is the Vice Chairman of the MVFCA engineering committee and is a partner with Husch Blockwe/1, Kansas City, MO. Karin has more than 25 years of civil engineering experience, with more than 10 spent as the local sponSQr for a robust flood protection program.

Stephen Gambrell is the Executive Vice President of MVFCA and has worked on water solutions for 37 years in the US and more than two dozen countries. He was a civil engineer public servant with the Army Corps of Engineers for 33 years.

Protect - Produce - Provide The MVFCA is the strong, consistent voice from eleven states of connected local people who own homes, land and businesses that deliver world envied productivity with unmatched efficiency along a super water highway wNh strategically located on-ramps. This

economic engine that feeds the world depends on a flood control system that enables reliable business, land, and watar commerce.

194


4.19

3

The United States Senate Committee on EnVironment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6175

My conc~rn is the money we have spent to put tubes in with special lids to keep the rivet out, expenses preparing for the river to go pass flood stage. The stress that it puts on a person. I do not understand we went from 1952 to 2011 not having a flood but now we go into flood stage regularly. It has only been 7 years (last year) the river was also in flood stage and again this yeat. It has to be mismanagement, this is taking people's lives in more ways than being swept away. The stress is unreal!! There are so many ways this flooding is impacting the fatm families, that can't be seen just by flying over the river and taking pictures.

Rita Utman Modale, Iowa

195


4.19

4

The United StatesSenate Committee on Environment and Pt\blic Works 410 Dirksen Senate Offi<;<: Building Washfngton, DC 2051().;6175

Dear Committee Mem~rs:

We.must improve l-29 so that portions of this v:ital highwi}.y will not be <:;u])ject to closure from the worst flood of record. This highway, a large portion of which tracks the Missouri River, must remain open for emergency services and to serve health and safety, education (so that our children are not cut off from their schools during times of flooding), regional and national economic development (including transportation), and our national securitY· We Americans have the know how and resources to accomplish this task. The lost opportunity c.ost to the regional and national economy (tom inaction is orders of magrtitude higher than the cost of this project.

Respectfully submitted,

On behalf of the 1\fissouri Levee and Drainage District AssoCiation

Robert Vincze, Flood Control representative, Missouri River Recovery Implementation C.ommittee

196


4.19

5

The United States Senate Coinmittee on Environment and Public Works 41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6175

Do farmers care about environmental issues'? Of course they do. Probably nobody cares more. Should farmers have to loose their farms over a fish? No. We need to use some common sense. Killing cattle, destroying ground, and most importantly human life just has to take presidents overthis fish and over boating and recreation.

People now are so far removed frotn their food sources that it is easy to forget that the nations .food supply comes from the American farmer and not the grocery store. We must remember that soon. Pleasehelp by making flood control a priority.

Sincerely, Shannon Miller

197

Æ


4.19

6

To the US Senate Committee of Environment Public Works ....

It is absolutely heartbreaking and devastating to see what is happening to the Missouri fartners. Our family is a fifth generation fann. We have many worries and concerns our fatm and other surrounding farms. will be lost to ragirtg flood waters. Something desperately needs. to be done to stop the flooding, It's very apparent that costly dam11ge and devastation has been done over the ,Years. Homes, livestock, businesses, and family farms are being destroyed, Our levees are not and never have been designed to withstand the river level seen in the last decade. Without major changes fanning near the water/river might not be viable much longer. Flood control should be the US Army C01:ps of Engineers top priority for Missouri River management. Please let us be .heard and make changes to protect our land and our livelihood!

Virgil and Scott Crockett

field hearing

Documents