Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
H.R. 728, THE SMALL WATERSHED REHABILITATION AMENDMENTS OF 1999 AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE'S SMALL WATERSHED PROGRAM
Friday, September 24, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Good morning, and welcome to the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
Today we will hear testimony on the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1999 and the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Small Watershed Program. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1999, H.R. 728, was introduced earlier this year by Representative Lucas. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost-share assistance for the rehabilitation of dams that were constructed under the auspices of the USDA. This legislation represents a critical step toward repairing a significant component of our Nation's water infrastructure.
Over the last 50 years, the NRCS has been involved in the construction of approximately 10,000 dams across our Nation. These dams have helped American farmers remain the most efficient and productive in the world. Unfortunately, many of these dams, over 2,000 according to most estimates, are in need of structural repairs; and the failure to make these repairs could have devastating impacts on those who live around these structures.
Under H.R. 728, the Secretary of Agriculture may provide technical assistance in planning, designing and implementing rehabilitation projects should an eligible local organization request such assistance. I think this point bears repeating. The Secretary may only provide assistance when eligible local organizations request such assistance.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Because assistance only comes after a local request, it is my belief that the uses of this assistance should include the decommissioning of a dam if that is what the local sponsor desires. As we have seen on the Kennebec River in Maine, there are instances where a dam has outlived its productive life and the local community wants it decommissioned.
We will also hear testimony this morning on the proposed Middle Deep Red Run Creek small watershed project in Oklahoma. This project has the support of Congressman Watts and Lucas, and I am hopeful that we can authorize this project this year.
I know turn to my distinguished colleague and good friend from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for holding this hearing ahead of what may be a brewing problem. I also want to commend our colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for his leadership in this issue.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are currently more than 10,000 dams nationwide in the Small Watershed Program under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. Most of these dams were built under the authority of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and Watershed Protection and Flood Control Acts of 1953.
Simple math shows us that some of these dams are approaching the end of their 50-year designated useful life. More dams will be added to this category as time passes. It is estimated that 85 percent of small watershed dams will be 50 years or older by the year 2020. At that age the dams may be safety hazards to areas downstream, and appropriate measures must be taken to address the potential risks. Indeed, as development took place in the years since their construction, the safety and economic risk communities face today from the failure of these dams are often greater than the flooding risks the dams were initially built to protect.
Now is the time for Congress to decide what to do with dams that are fast becoming deficient or obsolete, and that is why this hearing is so timely. Our colleague Mr. Lucas' bill represents one approach. H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1999 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to rehabilitate dams that were originally constructed as part of a small watershed project. The goal is, extend the useful life of the dams and to bring them into compliance with safety and performance standards. However, some of these dams are not only deficient and pose safety risks, but they are also obsolete. In those limited cases, I believe decommissioning or removal of the dams may be the appropriate course of action. Removing the dams in particular would provide environmental benefits by creating new habitats for aquatic species.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If the bill moves forward, Mr. Chairman, the committee should consider broadening the type of financial assistance and authorize under the bill to include dam decommissioning and removal. Furthermore, the bill authorizes only the rehabilitation of dams that are part of the small watershed projects. There could be other critical components of such projects that are becoming deficient just like the dams. If we were to authorize the rehabilitation of small watershed dams I see little reason why we should not authorize the rehabilitation of those other critical components as well.
These are some of the issues I would like to explore, and I look forward to the testimony of today's witness.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest, do you have any words of wisdom?
Mr. GILCHREST. No real significant words of wisdom, Mr. Chairman. Just happy to have Mr. Lucas here this morning. I think he has a good idea for legislation, something we haven't looked into seriously in the past, and I think it is an issue that needs to be raised and for us to consider it.
I will make a quick comment about some of the dams in my area. On the Susquehanna River, the U.S. Geological Survey has predicted that in 12 to 15 years that if the sediment that has built up behind those dams isn't cleared out the entire Chesapeake Bay could be in serious ecological harm due to the amount of sediment that would be overwashed from those dams. I know that is not what Frank is talking about here this morning, but there is a large amount of sediment that has built up behind any dam, whether it is a big hydroelectric power dam or whether it is a small impoundment that was created for various reasons. So I think Frank has a good idea for us to look into the dams and what we can do about them.
Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just have some brief remarks and would ask unanimous consent to have my entire statement and a letter from Dayle Williamson, Director of our State's Department of Natural Resources, submitted for the record.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. BEREUTER. I want to say I am very supportive of Mr. Lucas' important initiative. I am a cosponsor. We have, let's see, approximately 10,000 small watershed structures built over the last 10 years. Some of them have some problems. That is what the gentleman's legislation is all about.
But our Director of Nebraska Resources has a cautionary note we would like to have the subcommittee consider. It seems that we believe our structures are in relatively good shape—in fact, in almost all cases, excellent shape. And we are concerned that those States that have taken care of their structures through local efforts or State efforts not be penalized by allowing other States to tap into scarce resources to perform routine operation and maintenance which should have been provided. So I am asking my colleagues to consider how that kind of concern can be put into legislation or legislative intent. By providing additional resources now, however, we can ensure that the origin investments made into these structures pay dividends well into the future, and that is where Mr. Lucas' legislation is very important. So I am very supportive of it.
I want to say to Mr. Lucas and my colleagues that I have a markup in the Banking Committee on a housing bill right now, so I am going to be in and out. It is not for lack of interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Borski.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks for that very thoughtful observation. We are going to be very mindful of that as we continue our deliberations.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Chair now is pleased to recognize Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to put one modest concern on the table. One of the things that we have been looking at is to try and make sure that we provide maximum environmental and community benefit for these initiatives, and I just hope that in the course of our conversation here today that we make sure that we provide maximum resources and flexibility to the local decisionmaking in terms of what is going to make the most sense for river health. In some cases, we are talking about restoration and rehabilitation of a dam. In some cases, it may make more sense environmentally, economically, for us to be involved with the removal or the modification of the structure.
We have talked often before this committee that it makes no sense for the Federal Government to interfere with the decisionmaking process locally, where sometimes it is easier for people to pave a creek than to have a cheaper, greener alternative that makes the same or better environmental impact. And I hope that through the leadership of you, Mr. Borski, working with Mr. Lucas that we make sure that we are providing under this legislation the option, if necessary, to modify or remove if that is the most environmental, economic and ecological approach.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his intervention. I couldn't agree more. I tried to make note of that in my opening statement. But you are absolutely right, decommissioning is an option that should be on the table if it makes the most sense.
Mr. Boswell.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for having this hearing. And I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Lucas, for his initiative.
I am impressed you got your local TV station here. And I say this very respectfully because I spent a number of years in a place called Lawton, Oklahoma, myself. So I just bring that attention to say that we enjoyed those years in Oklahoma. They were special years. I mean it sincerely.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am not surprised, being aware of some of the strange weather phenomena that has hit that part of the country from time to time, that you would pick up on this and want to do something about it. This is indicative of you being alert and on the ball. And even though we are a number of miles north of there, we, too, have the need for this rehabilitation and so on.
But I have been up and down the Red River and some of those places around there a few times, and I know that you have the needs. So thanks for your initiative on getting this rolling, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I thank my colleagues.
Now it is my pleasure to welcome our as our first panelist, the distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Frank Lucas. Mr. Lucas.
TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, for the opportunity to testify before the committee today about H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1999, that I introduced last February.
H.R. 728 was referred to the Agriculture, Transportation and Resource Committees. I am pleased to report that the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, of which I am a member, held a markup on this legislation in July. The bill passed the subcommittee by a voice vote without any changes. Currently there is wide bipartisan support for H.R. 728 with a total of 46 cosponsors, and I am hopeful that in the next several weeks we will see a Senate companion bill introduced. As you see, this legislation is gaining momentum, and I greatly appreciate the timeliness of your committee, this committee holding a hearing on this very important legislation.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to give you a little background as to why this issue is to important to Oklahoma and to the Nation as a whole. I was raised in Western Oklahoma and one of the things I most clearly remember from growing up there was the sight of these flood control dams near my home. I didn't know it at that time, but those dams were built because the community and political leaders knew from firsthand experience the importance of flood control. They had witnessed a series of horrific floods that washed across Oklahoma watersheds in the 1930's and 1940's, terrifying events that inspired them to take necessary steps to reduce the threats that these floods posed to people, land and water quality.
Since 1944, nearly 10,500 small watershed dams have been built in the United States. Over 2,000 of those dams are located in my home State of Oklahoma. Many of those dams were planned and designed with a 50-year life expectancy. Fifty years ago, there was little concern about what to do when these dams reached their life expectancy.
During the week of the 4th of July in 1998, a celebration in Cordell, Oklahoma, marked the 50th anniversary of America's first United States Department of Agriculture floodwater retarding structure. This is just 1 of 1,000 dams that will reach their life expectancy of 50 years within the next 10 years.
Today, the Small Watershed Program represents an $8.5 billion Federal investment and an approximately $6 billion local investment in the infrastructure of this country. We don't allow our highways to crumble nor should we ignore our small watershed dams. It is time, I believe, that we address the rehabilitation needs of these aging structures.
Although the Federal Government paid for the construction costs of these dams, under current Federal law there is no authority or funds to rehabilitate them. Repair costs are far beyond the budgets of local sponsors. The Federal Government, I believe, clearly has a responsibility to ensure dam safety.
To meet this responsibility, I have introduced the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments. If passed, my bill would provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to provide financial assistance to local organizations up to 65 percent of the total rehabilitation construction costs.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The legislation in its present form would authorize $60 million a year for 10 years, beginning in the year 2000, to help rehabilitate these structures. I cannot believe that we must nor that we should wait until disaster happens. If rehabilitation is not done, then we may be forced to face the awful possibilities of flooding, of loss of wildlife habitat, water shortages, pollution. More regrettably, in the event of a failure we may have to confront the loss of life and property, crops and livestock. The economic impact of such dam failures on communities and on local economies could be devastating. We must, I believe, act before any of these situations occur.
The Small Watershed Program is one of the Nation's most successful public-private partnerships. In fact, these completed small watershed projects provide about $2.20 in benefits for every $1 of cost. Very few government programs can make that kind of a claim. We must continue our partnership.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I hope this committee will authorize the Red Run Creek watershed plan in the near future. It is my understanding that the citizens of southwest Oklahoma have been trying to get this project approved for many years. This project will provide flood protection for the Hackberry Flat wetland restoration area water storage and supply as well as protect and enhance the wildlife, fish and other wetland resources in southwest Oklahoma. It is just another example of the benefits that these small watersheds can provide the surrounding area.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for holding this hearing. I am hopeful that the committee will be able to support my bill and help push it through the legislative process.
Mr. BOEHLERT. This is amazing. I want you to know that the clock ticked exactly 5 minutes as you concluded. That is an exceptional presentation.
Mr. LUCAS. It shows the level of my respect for the committee.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is that the first time we have had something concluded in 5 minutes?
Mr. BOEHLERT. No, but it was precise.
First of all, I want to thank you for that, for being mindful and sensitive to the committee's time constraints. But, secondly, I want to applaud your tenacity, because you single-handedly have energized three separate committees to deal with this very important subject, and I applaud you for that.
I will just have one question for you. You have heard some of the opening statements—Mr. Blumenauer myself, others. Would you be willing to allow for a decommissioning as an option, rather than simply calling for repairing?
Mr. LUCAS. I am willing to consider whatever options the committee would consider to be in the best interest of our citizens.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. I have no questions. I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership. This is a problem and one I think that there is decent awareness of by the subcommittee, and we look forward to the process continuing.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Frank, do you know the priority, that which are the worst dams in your area that would need to be looked at first?
Mr. LUCAS. That is one of the things that is called for in the bill, is to set up a mechanism to survey these 10,000 structures across the country and establish a pecking order of where the greatest need is—clearly, the oldest structures, because of the deterioration of the metal in the letdown pipes, the resting of the valve works, in some cases sediment problems on one side of the dam or spillway erosion on the other. I think it won't be that difficult, one, to establish an index to determine where to prioritize it, but it basically leaves that with the Department to decide.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Are you authorizing sufficient funds? Given, I would assume, a sense of urgency, if there are 10,000 dams—I don't know how many are in critical shape to—is there a sufficient amount of money to do the problem in a timely manner?
Mr. LUCAS. I believe, based on conversations we have had with experts, with folks at the NRCS, with State conservation commissions, I think there are enough funds to begin the process; and I hope it would be a minimum level of authorization. But the bottom line remains we operate in a very difficult environment dollarwise, but we have to create the authority to start to do something and to provide whatever resources we can to begin that process. That is my basic view.
Mr. GILCHREST. There is no authority right now to look at needed repairs for these 10,000 dams and NRCS doesn't have any ability to do that?
Mr. LUCAS. The resources that have been available have been funds that have been shifted around by the NRCS in a very limited capacity, and they operate on a tight budget. The resources that have been used to try and determine our problems are provided by the local entities, the State conservation commissions. We are doing the best we can, speaking in a broad sense I think for everyone involved with the resources we have. But it is a shoestring-type project right now, Wayne.
Mr. GILCHREST. You have tapped into something pretty important, Frank. So we will do what we can on this committee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks very much.
Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lucas, perhaps you noted the concern of our Director of the State Resources Committee. We have unique natural resource districts with taxing power, and they put quite a bit of resources into routine operation and maintenance and upgrading facilities, and that is one of the reasons we think they are in good shape. What do you think about his concern and how would you deal with his concern that some of these funds would end up being potentially spent for what should be routine operation and maintenance or they are correcting problems that should about have been attended to by routine operation and maintenance? Are you willing, for example, to give some very specific directions as to ineligible items in addition to those things that you specifically authorize or what would be your answer to this kind of a concern?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LUCAS. I think your folks have a very good point, Doug. I would like to maintain as much flexibility as possible within the legislation. I would think that NRCS, the USDA, that they would attempt—when the legislation is implemented—they would attempt to prioritize as best they can.
But one of the things about this situation is, until we authorize the money and begin the study to determine what is out there, I am afraid we are going to find a lot of people, when they begin to really closely examine the existing structures, the magnitude of the problems, the rust within the letdown pipes, the valve works that may have not have been turned in 10 years because there was no need to turn them may not function anymore, the magnitude of the problem in spite of the best maintenance and upkeep provided in all of the various States that these dams are located in may surprise all of us. But this bill sets into motion that process.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let the chair also intervene and, as I pointed out, Mr. Bereuter's opening statement was very thoughtful, and it was a very important observation.
On page 6 of the bill, Section D, Performance of Operation and Maintenance, Mr. Lucas' bill specifically states, ''Rehabilitation assistance provided under this section may not be used to perform operation and maintenance activities specified in the agreement for the covered water resource project, et cetera, et cetera.'' that would partially address the very sensitive point you have pointed your finger to.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it could hardly be stated more clearly in the legislation. I commend the gentleman for that. I just know how these things evolve in the bureaucracy. I don't know what we do, underline it or whatever. But I think the gentleman from Oklahoma is absolutely right, we are going to be surprised, unfortunately, at what we discover in some of these structures, probably problems in clay permeability and so on in the structure itself.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I thank the gentleman for his great effort in moving us to this point; and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
If no one else seeks recognition—Mr. Boswell.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very short.
But I think that our author, our colleague, is hitting on a very good point in this bill, the flexibility and the local control. We all espouse, talk here a lot about not taking away from local control, and I have a lot of confidence in those people down there from Frank's area because I know some of them. I have been down there. I have flown all over that area, and I have hunted and so on. You know, those folks, give them a little bit of rein, and they will do the right thing, so I would hope that we don't interfere with that. And remember that we often talk about not interfering with the local control.
So good job on the flexibility issue, and let's keep it in there.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, sir, very much.
Mr. Lucas, thank you for very fine testimony. We do appreciate it.
We will move to panel number two this morning consists of Mr. Danny Sells, Associate Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. He will be accompanied by Mr. Charles Pearre, who is a Team Leader of the Dam Safety Team.
Mr. Sells, you know the drill. Your statement will appear in its entirety in the record at this juncture.
We could ask that you try to summarize in 5 minutes or so; and you may call on your partner in this venture, Mr. Pearre, for anything he might care to add as you conclude your statement.
The Chair is pleased to recognize Mr. Sells.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF DANNY D. SELLS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES M. PEARRE, TEAM LEADER, DAM SAFETY TEAM, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. SELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. Chairman, the events of this past week exemplify the need and functions that our watershed projects serve. The devastation from Hurricaine Floyd has crippled the communities and taken a toll on local economies. These communities may never be the same again.
I would like to take a moment to say that pictures we have seen from North Carolina, roads under water, barns and farm machinery submerged, loss of crops and livestock and the more personal tragedy of families uprooted and now homeless are a scene that was more familiar to previous generations of American farmers and rural communities. Flooding across many parts of the South, the Midwest, and the Great Plains were at one time as common as the changing of the seasons.
Through the NRCS Small Watershed Program we have reduced the impacts of that flooding, protected communities, furnished drinking water and irrigation water to rural communities and stimulated local economies. In this circumstance, seven dams in the Bear Creek watershed in Goldsboro, North Carolina, significantly reduced flood damages to downstream areas. Rainfall totals exceeded 14 inches in some places, but the watershed dams served their function and kept a bad situation from becoming even worse.
As the remnants of the hurricane passed through the Northeast the watershed projects there performed just as well. For example, in New York State, three dams in the Batavia watershed in the Catskills protected the City of Windham; and the Higgenbotham Brook watershed protected a hospital and many homes in the town of Oneida. These silent protectors performed as they were designed to do.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have seen time and again that the areas protected by watershed structures have consistently passed through the storm, ensuring less damage. We naturally look to watershed structures during the time of flooding, but it is important to note that, in addition to flood protection, our projects served as sources of water for many communities and many farmers during the severe drought experienced in the Northeast this summer. As a result of these successes, communities have responded to the benefits that the program provides, and we currently have a backlog of more than 1.5 billion dollars in approved projects.
Additionally, and above this need, local sponsors are bringing forth new and worthwhile projects each and every week. One such project before this committee for authorization is the Middle Deep Red Run of southwest Oklahoma. It has a drainage area of 186,000 acres and consists of nine flood control structures and one multipurpose structure. The total cost for this project is $11.4 million, of which the Federal share is $9.5 million.
The project also embodies our efforts to integrate NRCS programs in a way that maximizes the benefits for conservation and the environment. The watershed is a priority area for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP. In this watershed we also have a major effort under way through the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore a 7,000 acre wetland called the Hackberry Flats. One of the functions of this watershed project will be to provide water to that wetland providing a tremendous amount of fish and wildlife habitat.
The project also partners greatly with outside organizations, including the State government and Ducks Unlimited. If the Middle Deep Red Run watershed plan is implemented, it will provide environmental, economic and social benefits for southwest Oklahoma that are typical of the NRCS Small Watershed Program. In total, we estimate that this program yields annual benefits of over $800 million.
Mr. Chairman, we want to ensure that the Small Watershed Program continues to serve its important functions.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Since 1948, NRCS and local sponsors have built about 11,000 flood control dams. Many of these structures are now reaching the end of their design life and, unless rehabilitated, may pose significant threats to human health, safety and to the environment. The deterioration of these structures threatens to impact the estimated $14 billion infrastructure of flood control and other benefits these projects provide nationwide.
The Administration acknowledges that dam safety is a growing problem and is committed to working with Congress and the relevant State and Federal agencies to find the best way to address this issue. Mr. Lucas has introduced his bill, H.R. 728, which raises important questions regarding the shared responsibility for dam safety between Federal, State and local entities. It would place a cost share ratio of 65 percent Federal and 35 percent local match on rehabilitation cost. It would provide $60 million per year for rehabilitation and $5 million to do an assessment of aging dams.
We do have some concerns with the bill. It specifies that cost-benefit analysis for rehabilitation proposals shall not be done despite the fact that such analysis along with the required NEPA process could provide a good way to examine these proposals and provide help in ranking rehabilitation projects.
We are also concerned about the amount of resources that will be needed to undertake this effort and believe that funding for rehabilitation should not come at the expense of other ongoing small watershed projects.
With this in mind, we look forward to working with you on this very important issue.
I would note that the reports of several dam failures as a result of Hurricane Floyd—I am pleased to report that none of these were constructed under the NRCS watershed program. However, it is disturbing to note that where dams failed in this instance major highways and other infrastructure were either seriously impaired or, at a minimum, temporarily disrupted.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is important that we have this discussion now on how to proceed on legislation such as H.R. 728 before a failure occurs. We cannot prevent a catastrophic event such as Hurricane Floyd, but we can prepare, prepare as best we can, to ensure that life and property are not placed at further risk.
I thank the subcommittee and would be happy to take any questions that you might have.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Sells.
Let me start right off. The bill would address NRCS dams only. Are there other federally constructed dams that are in need of rehab? WPA dams, for example?
Mr. SELLS. There would be some additional dams, some in the Corps and some WPA dams of varying responsibility. And I think that is truly one of the reasons we need to discuss the shared responsibility, Federal, State and local, from the standpoint of identifying the threat. I would also offer an opportunity for Mr. Pearre to answer as respect to the WPA dams.
Mr. PEARRE. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to look at the inventory of WPA dams. When that agency was abolished, a lot of the records got just kind of lost.
The ownership of those dams varies from Federal dams such as Grand Coulee, which was funded by WPA, to local farm ponds owned by individual farmers. The exact number of those is unknown. It was over 11,000 dams built in the 1930's through about mid–1940's that are still shown in the National Inventory of Dams maintained by the Corps of Engineers. However, we do not maintain the original design of those dams. We added that field last year, and it is starting to be filled. The ones that are identified as being built by WPA in that field are basically owned by the States. However, we know that the Federal agencies such as the National Park Service has a large number of these WPA dams and a large number are in private hands.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. So we sort of know what we don't know I guess is the answer.
Let me ask you something else. Following up on a question Mr. Bereuter posed before he had to leave, how much of the problem of deteriorating dams do you think, Mr. Sells, is a result of insufficient maintenance by local interest?
Mr. SELLS. Over the 50-year period, Mr. Chairman, naturally changes within a community and the community's economic capabilities or the capabilities of the local sponsors have changed, and we would be remiss not to admit that there are some that have not had the O&M that we would prefer.
That is true in many projects around the Federal Government. But we don't feel that the issue here is one that is exacerbated terribly by that situation or not a huge piece of it. That, overall, the real issue is the aging of the structures, the aging of the concrete and the metal in these structures as well as just the changing dynamics within the watershed itself, both above the dam and very especially below the dam and threats that they present. But most the overriding majority of our local sponsors have done an excellent job of meeting their responsibilities of O&M.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask, how are the responsibilities for ensuring dam safety currently shared among Federal, State and local authorities?
Mr. SELLS. I am not sure. My counterpart may be in a better position, but State dam safety officials would bear the majority of that responsibility.
Mr. PEARRE. Mr. Borski, the State dam safety offices are responsible for the safety of all the dams within the States except for the Federal dams that are owned, operated and maintained by the Federal Government.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BORSKI. And is this arrangement satisfactory? Is this the way it should be?
Mr. PEARRE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BORSKI. Let me ask about funding. You touched on that, Mr. Sells, in your statement. My understanding is there is already a backlog of $1.5 billion and the agency's budget for Small Watershed Program is decreasing and is expected to go down further. Are you prepared to undertake dam rehabilitation if H.R. 728 is enacted?
Mr. SELLS. That is one of the reasons we are concerned about the funding issues it puts pressure on all of us as we continue to reduce the Federal budget. Admittedly, our program has declined in its funding from Congress over the last several years to really, at this point, less than half of the traditional 200 to 225 million per year. And naturally it puts a strain on our ability to meet the needs or the expectation of our constituents or the local sponsors on those projects that are approved. That is the reason we believe that any effort here to look at this responsibility and this obligation to protect our citizens needs to be looked at from the standpoint of additional funds that could be provided specifically for this purpose and not impact those projects that are approved and currently under construction or in design to provide the benefits they would provide to the community anew.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sells, we are talking about 10,000 dams now across the country?
Mr. SELLS. Between 10 and 11,000, yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. How many of these are federally owned or federally built?
Mr. SELLS. The structures under the Small Watershed Program are built with Federal assistance on a cost-share basis with the local sponsors and become the property of the local sponsors upon their completion.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. So of the 10,000 thousand dams we are talking about here for this legislation, all of them or virtually all of them have been under the control of the State or some local jurisdiction?
Mr. SELLS. The local sponsors of the project, be it the local community or some combination.
Mr. GILCHREST. So then NRCS' responsibility for maintaining these impoundments or dams or the maintenance of these dams has not been—you don't have that responsibility once it was turned over.
Mr. SELLS. No, sir, we do not under the agreement with the local sponsors for operation and maintenance following the completion of the dam. We do not have with the program any legal responsibility for the structure of the dam following that completion. That becomes the responsibility of the local sponsors. From the rehabilitation standpoint, we do not, within the current authorities, actually have the authority to do the rehabilitation.
Mr. GILCHREST. You say you don't.
Mr. SELLS. We do not sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you feel then this legislation which provides or may provide funding and a structure within NRCS to work with the local dam authority to provide that maintenance, is that the gist of this legislation?
Mr. SELLS. Not to provide the maintenance. It would be through the ranking process and, hopefully, through a cost- benefit analysis. Once Mr. Lucas' bill has enabled us to use funds to do an assessment of the situation with the aging dams out there, we would then be working with the dam for rehabilitation to correct a problem that poses a threat to life and property.
Mr. GILCHREST. So a list of priorities. When you do that, when you go in this process—I know a couple of people have mentioned that maybe the best thing to do would be to take down the dam for whatever reason, but when included in the analysis of your prioritization of problems with these dams, are you going to take into consideration the now, I think, enforced section of the Clean Water Act that deals with total maximum daily load of nutrients? Is that a consideration in the upgrade of these dams considering that many of these impoundments, the impoundment area caused by the dam may be filled now because of agriculture or other reasons with phosphorous and nitrogen and that causes a downstream overload and a violation of whatever section that is of the clean water act, TMDLs. Is that a consideration in this whole process?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SELLS. Well, probably will be a consideration to some degree, maybe not a controlling consideration. But many of these structures are providing erosion control, sediment control as a part of their function to begin with for the watershed above the dam. Many of the rehabilitation needs to be just additional capacity because of the reduced capacity of the current structure because of that sedimentation. So the issue of decommissioning of which we believe should also be included in the full range of options of looking at rehabilitation, you know, could be what is in that particular structure that could pose a threat.
Mr. GILCHREST. Would a dialogue with EPA or their State counterpart be an important part of the whole process? And in the process of doing that—I am talking because my time is almost up—just a discussion of the TMDLs because they are out there. But also, with the sediment build-up behind those dams, is there any consideration to remove that sediment that is probably full or overloaded with nutrients?
Mr. SELLS. Just to list real quickly some of the items that we have thought of in preparation of looking at this legislation that would be criteria for priority or ranking would be the potential loss of life if no action were taken, amount of population that were at risk if no action were taken, evaluation of the cost benefit of the project, environmental concerns, readiness of the local sponsors.
Mr. GILCHREST. What would be the environmental concerns?
Mr. SELLS. It would be the whole range. It could be the TMDL issue or what happens to be contained—
Mr. GILCHREST. Would you consult with Fish and Wildlife?
Mr. SELLS. Through the normal Federal process, yes sir, with all the various relevant agencies.
Mr. GILCHREST. I don't want to diminish the value of human life or the need for drinking water or irrigation, but I think these other things could be included in the process. Thank you very much.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Baird, Mr. Boswell, anyone seek recognition? Mr. Baird.
Mr. TAYLOR. Quick question.
Mr. BOEHLERT. By all means. You are senior, and you are first in line. Mr. Baird, you will have to defer to your colleague from Mississippi, the distinguished gentleman.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Sells, I am often a little confused. On one hand, I hear my colleagues saying we want less Federal Government, we want fewer mandates and then, on the other hand, see something like the gentleman's bill. Do you think the local governing authorities, county supervisors, the States out there would see this effort as an additional mandate placed on them or would they look at it as something that would be for the long-term good and some help from Washington that they would appreciate?
Mr. SELLS. Well, it probably, Mr. Taylor, depends on how we wind up in this discussion of what are the shared responsibilities. If we share the responsibility, then I don't think that is a potential problem.
But I think one of the issues we really have to look at is what is the capacity of the local community in order to rehabilitate or take a responsibility and how do we normally deal with low-income or minority communities in order to ensure that they are afforded the same protection as other citizens. You know, if there was some direction to go out and fix these things without any effort to provide either technical or financial assistance, beyond question, you know it potentially could be looked at in that fashion. But that is not the intent of these discussions.
Mr. TAYLOR. Does the bill as written, even when you are talking about 65 percent Federal money, do you see it as written as a Federal mandate to require the locals to come up with the other 35 percent or an opportunity for them to come up with the other 35 percent?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SELLS. No, sir. And just because of the current operation of the program and how we operate locally with local control, these projects for rehabilitation, just like our new projects, come at the request of the local community and the local sponsors. So they actually bring the projects to us having full knowledge of the various responsibilities and costs. So it wouldn't be something we would go do, but it would be something they would request assistance from us.
Mr. TAYLOR. I think it is fair to say that there have been other instances, and I think wastewater treatment is probably one of the better examples where the mandates started off with the carrot and later on became a mandate. Is there the potential for that happening here?
Mr. SELLS. That certainly has not been the situation with this program, the Small Watershed Program. Nor do we see it going in any direction such as that with the additional authority necessary to look at rehabilitation work. This has been definitely a local partnership, driven locally, you know, through the help of the Federal Government to meet local needs in a community. So I really do not see that as a problem.
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions on priority.
And when you look on this as a Small Watershed Program, is there a possibility of dams in related small watersheds that they need coordination in terms of the flow through and all that and it becomes a major problem in coordination? Or do you see that as, say, four or five dams in an area really, when you put them together, you have got a major watershed coordination problem? How do you see that working out?
Mr. SELLS. Well, generally within the confines of a watershed and from the Corps standpoint—definitely would want any comments added that the Corps would offer—but we look at these from a watershed standpoint. And the project Middle Deep Red Run that is seeking authorization, there are within this watershed nine or ten structures as a part of it. So it is designed as a coordinated effort within the watershed itself and looking at those resources. I don't think we have any problems with that coordination.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. In terms of the prioritizing of who gets what, when and where, how much weight would you place on the impact of that dam in saving people from flood control or the value of the crops that might relate from that dam and are there other criteria and which ones would you say are ahead of the others?
Mr. SELLS. Well, I think, as we all would believe, that the potential loss of life is the first issue that needs to be addressed.
Mr. HORN. That is people. I agree with you. What is next?
Mr. SELLS. The amount of development below these structures that has occurred over the 50-year period since they were originally built. Then the cost benefit, what does the community really want and need? Looking at the full range of issues from rehabilitation effort to say what the function is or a community's decision to say that decommissioning is the best approach. So the whole range would be the next issue.
Naturally, the environmental concerns, as Mr. Gilchrest raised, is an issue that has to be considered in this process. What does it mean in the overall of looking at the environmental impacts within the watershed? Those are just a beginning of our thoughts should this legislation be passed and this authority be included in our current program.
Mr. HORN. One of the things we learned from the Mississippi floods in 1993, and I certainly have learned it in my own district with the Los Angeles River. For 30 years we put cement all over the Los Angeles River so the water flows down there at a tremendous velocity, bringing everything before it. And the question would be, would we be better off in some linkage of underground water and lakes and setting aside on the way down so you don't have this unbelievable 80-miles-an-hour flow?
Mr. SELLS. There really is an incredible opportunity here to look at the rehabilitation and to really look at nonstructural solutions as well, up-land water storage through wetlands, various and sundry other opportunities to really not pour concrete and not to channel or anything of that nature but to look at the nonstructural methods, that we have better technology in doing that today than we did 50 years ago when these structures were originally designed. So we would agree with your comment wholeheartedly to look at that full range of issues.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
I will yield to my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. On that note of nonstructural flood control and a whole range of other things, the Corps is looking at that in several areas. And certainly the Interior Department is looking at dismantling certain dams that are not necessary. So is NRCS collaborating their effort with the Corps and Interior on some of these issues?
Mr. PEARRE. Yes, we are. The Corps, Interior and NRCS will work very closely on dam safety and on the problem of aging infrastructure of dams. Because this is a problem that affects all of us.
Mr. GILCHREST. Could I, in the few seconds remaining—I just recently read a book about the history of water in the United States dating back to 1500. Fascinating discussion about the natural process of water, rivers, lakes, streams that has been virtually totally interrupted by human civilization and activity. The title of it is Water by Alice Outwater, she is a Ph.D from MIT, and I just recommend it. It is a fascinating little primer on water and dams and all these other things.
Mr. SELLS. I will look into it thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sells, I have a dam in my district that you folks have actually been helpful with it. It has become undercut and leaking, and we are trying to rehabilitate it. So I clearly see the need for this, but I do have a couple of questions.
I note in your written comments that the bill specifies that the cost-benefit analysis—that the bill specifically prohibits a cost-benefit analysis from being conducted. I generally have a concern about that. But it also seems to put you in a particular paradoxical position. Because if you were tasked on the one hand by the bill with establishing a priority for ranking the projects that would receive funds and given that funds are finite, how can you possibly prioritize without conducting a cost-benefit analysis and have you discussed this matter with the bill's author?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SELLS. Yes sir, we have. And, as the comments indicate, we believe that a cost-benefit analysis as well as the NEPA process is a tool that could be used as a part of that ranking process to ensure that we do use the Federal funds in the best place for the highest need first. It would be awfully nice if we were able to go meet the immediate need because the need is there. But in all of our programs, as each of us are seeing in various areas, we are having to prioritize based on what is the need. And this would give us an opportunity to do that and to ensure that we meet the need of those structures that pose the greatest threat or the greatest potential danger to the public or public health would be looked at first. We agree with you.
Mr. BAIRD. As currently drafted, I am very supportive of the general intent of the bill, but as currently drafted I don't see how you could carry it out. I mean, you didn't draft the bill. I should have asked Mr. Lucas this earlier. But we have 10,000 dams around the country, some imperiling great numbers of people, some not so many people, some farmland, some residential, et cetera. Somehow you have to prioritize. Yet if the bill says you cannot cost-benefit how do you proceed?
Mr. SELLS. Well, these projects do not occur without the availability of good technically qualified staff of NRCS or the local community coming together. And I am very happy that, in your particular case, that has been the opportunity for NRCS to be helpful in your project.
One of the things that I think is important about Mr. Lucas' bill is the amount of money that is made available to assess the aging situation, to help us identify the exact situation out there. Part of that has to be as well, what is the need for the ability of staff, the ability of technical staff to do the technical assistance with the local community and ensure that we are meeting that need.
I do not have anybody sitting around today. Everybody I have on my staff has at least three jobs today where 4 or 5 years ago they only had one. So you are absolutely correct. It would be tough. We do feel this is a very important issue and an issue that we feel is the responsibility of us to bring to light and to look at. The Chief and I are very adamant in our comments on that. With the authority to actually look at the rehabilitation through the original program, we would be able to go forward and answer some of the questions you have raised.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAIRD. Let me ask a second question, if I might.
The other philosophy was that the local communities would have assistance constructing the dams, technical and construction assistance. Then it would become their property and responsibility for maintenance. My assumption would be that some communities have been diligent and have conducted the maintenance and expended the costs necessary to do that over time, and others may not have. The fear I have is if we now come in with dollars we essentially may be supplanting what should have been a local responsibility with Federal dollars and almost penalizing those communities that have done the right thing and maintained the maintenance responsibility.
Mr. SELLS. That definitely is an issue for us to make sure we look at. And Mr. Lucas' bill provides very specifically that the agreed-to O&M under the original contract that the structure was built, you know, should have been adhered to appropriately. We do have to look at the ability and the changing dynamics within the community. So we have to be flexible in the way we look at it in low-income and minority communities. But, as I said earlier, the overriding majority of local sponsors have done an excellent job of doing the required O&M.
Mr. BAIRD. Has there been consideration to—as I read this, it would be direct monies. Has there been consideration to some low-interest loan process as a way of helping the communities out but still maintaining the primary financial burden on the local communities?
Mr. SELLS. That is something that could be discussed as a part of the process. But an awful lot of these projects, the overriding majority of these projects are in very rural areas. Traditionally, the amount of cost-share provided in Mr. Lucas' bill is sort of traditional around the country on water resources projects. So it meets what is customary, what seems to occur given the capability of local communities. Being as they are very rural in nature, it limits the ability in a lot of cases we find of local communities even to come up with the amount that is necessary, let alone going above that. And a lot of in-kind opportunities in the current projects as well as in rehabilitation of local donated land rights and anything like that are counted in that to help them meet that.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
I want to thank Mr. Sells and associate for being here with us. I hope you have noticed the irony, as I have, of some of the questions. Usually some of the observations made by Mr. Baird come from this side of the aisle and some of the requests made by Mr. Lucas come from this side of the aisle. It shows what a thoughtful and good mix we have here. Thank you very much.
Now we will go to our third and final panel of the day consisting of Mr. Brad Iarossi, President of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials; and Ms. Margaret Bowman, Senior Director for Dam Programs, American Rivers.
Mr. Iarossi, you will go first, followed by Miss Bowman. As you both know, you are veterans, you have been around, we would ask that you would summarize your statement in 5 minutes or less. Your complete statement will appear in the record at this juncture.
TESTIMONY OF BRAD IAROSSI, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS, INC., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; AND MARGARET B. BOWMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF DAM PROGRAMS, AMERICAN RIVERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Iarossi.
Mr. IAROSSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and member of the subcommittee. My name is Brad Iarossi. I am President of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials and chair of the National Water Policy Committee for the American society of civil engineers. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today in favor of H.R. 728. Our Association strongly urges the subcommittee to recognize the need for and the tremendous benefits provided in H.R. 728.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our Association is a national organization of more than 2,000 State, Federal and local dam safety officials and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam safety and preventing dam failures.
Dams are an important part of this Nation's infrastructure. They provide flood control, water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydroelectric power. Of the 73,000 dams in this country the States regulate 95 percent of them. Therefore, the States have a very keen interest in this bill, H.R. 728.
By the year 2020, 85 percent of the dams in this country will be at least 50 years old, typically the design life of dams. Approximately 10,400 of the dams in this country are small watershed structures built under the U.S. Department of Agriculture programs beginning in the 1940's, primarily through the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of 1953.
The benefits from these small watershed dams are enormous and include downstream flood protection, water quality, irrigation, water supply and recreation. The small watershed dams are approaching the end of their useful lives, typically 50 years. And, as they do, the benefits are reduced and downstream lives and properties are increasingly threatened.
Our Association has identified nearly 2,000 unsafe dams in this country. Many of the dam owners do not have sufficient funds to repair them. The proposed funding authorized in H.R. 728 is an important first step in recognizing and resolving the enormous problem with deteriorating and aging dams.
Many of the small watershed dams do not meet minimum State dam safety standards, and many that are being counted on for flood protection can no longer provide flood protection due to excessive sedimentation and significant increases in runoff within the watershed. Many of these urgent repairs and modifications are needed due to downstream development within the dam failure flood zone. The dams suffer from deteriorating concrete, failing spillways, inoperable lake drains and other problems that require major repairs that are beyond the capability of the local sponsors.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
These small watershed dams were constructed with technical and financial assistance from the Federal Government. Local sponsors were required to provide operation and maintenance.
The Federal Government has a leadership role in assuring that these dams continue to provide benefits and meet critical safety standards. It is time for the Federal Government to renew its earlier commitment to the goals of the Flood Control Acts of 1944 and 1953. Completion of needed repairs will result in safer dams as well as continued benefits, but failure to reinvest in these structures will greatly increase the chances of dam failures, loss of benefits, both having significant economic and human consequences and both tapping the Federal budget as recovery costs from floods and dam failures come from the Federal Government through the Disaster Relief Fund and the National Flood Insurance Program.
These small watershed dams have been a silent and beneficial part of the landscape. The Federal Government has been an important partner in a very successful program, but failure to make the necessary upgrades, repairs and modifications will increase the likelihood of dam failures. Continued neglect of these structures may easily result in increased flood damage, towns without water supplies, farmers without irrigation, lives lost and property damaged as a result of dam failures.
A number of questions have been raised in recent weeks whether dams built with funds from the Works in Progress Administration should be covered under H.R. 728. These dams presently are not covered by H.R. 728.
Our Association has a number of concerns about including them in H.R. 728.
First, H.R. 728 deals with a specific subset of dams, those built under the authority of USDA. USDA has good records on these dams. They know how many there are, and they know the condition they are in.
Secondly, we don't know now how many WPA dams there are and what condition they are in. States that responded to our recent survey from us identified about 1,900 WPA dams, concentrating mostly in Minnesota, Montana, North and South Dakota. But these numbers are not complete. Our Association would support an amendment to H.R. 728 for funds to go to the Corps of Engineers to provide an inventory and assessment of all WPA dams as the Corps currently maintains a National Inventory of Dams. While it is likely that many WPA dams will also need repairs, this approach will enable H.R. 728 to proceed and allow us to make appropriate decisions on WPA dams later.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, failure to act will allow benefits to continue to diminish. These benefits will turn the liabilities into hazards and into disasters which are preventable. We urge the subcommittee to approve H.R. 728.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. GILCHREST. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Iarossi.
How is Baltimore?
Mr. IAROSSI. Yes, sir, I am the dam safety chief for the State of Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is the city doing OK?
Do you like your new mayor?
Mr. IAROSSI. He is not the mayor yet. I live in Prince Georges County.
Mr. GILCHREST. A connector problem with Montgomery and—we don't want to get too colloquial here.
Ms. Bowman, thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to your testimony.
Ms. BOWMAN. Morning, Mr. Chairman and other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1999. I am Senior Director of Dam Programs at American Rivers, a national river conservation organization with over 25,000 members.
American Rivers applauds the leadership of Representative Lucas in seeking to address safety threats in aging dams. Based on our experience working with local communities on dam and river management issues, we would like to make a few suggestions that we believe would complement and enhance this legislation. Our recommendations follow a simple theme: Give local sponsors more cost-effective options and more control over the fate of their aging water structures.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our amendment would provide local sponsors a new option. If they deem it appropriate, local sponsors could choose to decommission rather than repair an unsafe dam. The vast majority of the unsafe dams that this legislation is targeting provide valuable flood control benefits. We support the repair of those dams. However, some of these unsafe dams no longer supply flood control benefits and do not serve any other purposes. For these dams, local sponsors should have the option of decommissioning the dam.
Our proposed amendment will have several benefits. First, it will protect local decisionmaking. As currently written, H.R. 728 effectively gives local sponsors no choice other than to rebuild dams. If the local sponsor would like Federal funding to address the safety threat, their only choice is to repair the dam. Our amendment would return decisionmaking to the local level by allowing funding for a range of options to address the dam safety threat.
The second benefit of our amendment is its potential to result in significant cost savings. Dam decommissioning can often be a much cheaper option than dam repair for alleviating the safety risks of a small dam. For example, an examination of small dams removed through consensus process in Wisconsin showed that dam removal typically costs 2 to 5 times less than the estimated safety repair costs. In addition, because H.R. 728 only provides funding for dam repair, local sponsors may be forced to repair rather than decommission an obsolete dam. This will require those sponsors to commit future local funds to pay for the annual maintenance and operation of an obsolete dam.
A third benefit of our proposed amendment is that, where appropriate, removal of a dam can restore healthy rivers. While dams can benefit society, they can also cause considerable harm to rivers. This harm does not only come from large dams on large rivers. Small dams on tributary streams can also have significant negative impacts on a river system. Removal of a dam can reverse these damaging effects.
Dam removal can also be a useful tool to revitalize some local communities. Many communities are beginning to look towards their local river as a source of tourism dollars from fishing, boating and swimming; and it is a quality-of-life benefit to attract and keep residents.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dam removal can often help to restore rivers and thus allow communities to gain these economic benefits. Much of the recent national attention to dam removal has focused on controversial large dam removals. What has not been highlighted is the hundreds of small dams that have been removed over the past few decades, often with the support of local communities and often due to dam safety concerns. These dam removals have benefited local communities with a safe environment, restored rivers, and healthy fish and wildlife.
Given the significant national attention that dam removal has received lately, let me outline the three things that our proposed amendment will not do.
First, our proposed amendment will not result in the removal of all or even most of the dams constructed under the Small Watersheds Program. The proposed amendment does not require dam decommissioning. It merely provides the option of decommissioning should the local sponsor deem it appropriate. The vast majority of the unsafe dams that this legislation is targeting still provide valuable flood control benefits as well as other benefits, and we support the repair of these dams.
Second, our proposed amendments will not allow national conservation groups to demand removal of dams. This amendment allows the local sponsors to choose the option of dam decommissioning should they deem it appropriate.
Third, our proposed amendment will not provide funding for other controversial dam removal projects across the country. This amendment retains the focus of H.R. 728 on dams constructed under the Small Watersheds Program. We do not seek to expand the reach of authorized funds beyond this program.
American Rivers believes our proposed amendment further strengthen H.R. 728 and ensures our Nation's communities are protected from the hazards of aging dams in the most cost-effective and environmentally sound fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Bowman.
Do you have a sponsor for your amendment?
Ms. BOWMAN. Not yet.
Mr. BORSKI. She'll have plenty, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Iarossi, what do you think of Ms. Bowman's amendment?
Mr. IAROSSI. We support it if the issue is a dam safety concern. If removal takes care of that dam safety concern, then we support that being an option. If that is the best option, it should be explored.
Mr. GILCHREST. Now, at the present time, are either of you aware since these dams have been turned over to the State and local jurisdictions after they were built, does a local jurisdiction have the option to remove the dam right now?
Mr. IAROSSI. Certainly they have that option. The problem is funding. There are a great many dams across this country that need immediate repairs. Many of them are unsafe, and there is not a funding source for the owners to go to. The local sponsors are really the benefactors and recipients of this H.R. 728. They may have dams that need repairs. Otherwise, they could not fund those repairs.
Mr. GILCHREST. Of the 10,000 dams that we are talking about here, do either one of you have any estimate as to the number of dams that need repairs that the local jurisdiction doesn't have enough money to complete and need Federal assistance?
Mr. IAROSSI. I don't think I can answer that. And maybe USDA could, but I think they would be hard-pressed to answer for the local sponsors.
Mr. GILCHREST. Could you give a ballpark figure? Half? Quarter? Third?
Mr. IAROSSI. I believe the documents that USDA has prepared identified 2,200 dams that were identified as needing repair. That is what has come up with a $542 million cost.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. So we have 2,200 that need repair that local sponsors can't afford to repair.
Mr. IAROSSI. I believe that is the assumption for the basis of H.R. 728, that the local sponsors don't have that kind of money to put into major repairs. They truthfully barely have money to put in operation and maintenance. Beyond that, they are looking to the Federal Government as being a long-standing partner in these small watershed projects to help out.
Mr. GILCHREST. What will happen once—let's say we get the $500 million or whatever the amount will be, and the 2,200 dams are repaired. Some may be removed. Would you make any recommendation to the Federal Government as to what we should do in the future so we don't get ourselves in this situation again? The old proverb, you give a man a fish, he eats for a day; you teach him how to fish, he feeds himself for a lifetime. Any recommendation from either one?
Mr. IAROSSI. I think that is an important consideration so we are not back here in 50 years discussing the same things. And perhaps the answer is to ask the locals to provide some kind of ongoing additional funding to collect and maintain so when they are faced with future repairs it is not such a big burden put on the Federal Government.
Mr. GILCHREST. So I guess the figure that Mr. Lucas has in his bill is a figure that I would assume they got from USDA. Were you at all a part—your organization of making the recommendation or an estimate to the $500 million?
Mr. IAROSSI. No, sir we were not.
Mr. GILCHREST. Some of your recommendations, Ms. Bowman, are great recommendations; and I would certainly like to work with you and anybody else that wants to push those ideas. I think they are very positive.
Ms. BOWMAN. Thank you.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. I will yield to Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panelists for their contribution to this. I want to congratulate and commend Ms. Bowman for her suggestions. We look forward to working and improve this bill in the ways that you suggested. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. I am now going to return the chair to the chairman from the great State of New York, Mr. Boehlert.
Mr. BOEHLERT. [Presiding.] Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I was curious, given the estimate of two to five times more cost effective for removal, rather than repair, if there is any estimates about how if your amendment, which I am confident will be adopted, if it were in fact adopted, how much it would stretch the available dollars so that we could actually deal with more of the problem.
Ms. BOWMAN. I am confident—based on the estimates in Wisconsin, I am confident it would stretch the dollars. The question is how much. I think that is why we need to include the funding that is in here for the prioritization and assessment of the needs. And until you do that and you include a cost-benefit analysis of the options of repair versus removal, you would then be able to get an estimate. But until we take a look at that, I don't think anyone has a good feel now for those options.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I would hope that our staff might be able to pursue this a little bit. Oftentimes, we are in the situation where we are lavishing money on problems when actually we have cheaper, greener, more cost-effective alternatives available. We have seen that before, our committee. When we move people out of harm's way, it repays in flood insurance programs usually in 5 to 7 years.
If we could work with our staff to try and pinpoint some of these cost estimates I think it would be of great interest to the committee, to the public in terms of how much impact this would have stretching the dollars, being able to solve more of the problems; and it might give this the momentum that would help move this through the legislation.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me assure the gentleman that this will be the case. The staff has already actively engaged across the center aisle. I fully envision having the Chair offer the amendment that has been suggested by Ms. Bowman. I would welcome the strong bipartisan support that we have come to enjoy as we deal with these sensitive environmental concerns on the subcommittee. Thank you.
Mr. Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. Just a sort of question. I appreciate Mr. Gilchrest's observation if possible to remove a dam. I am not sure of context, but you mention the issue of silt that had built up behind the dams and the whole issue of TMDLs if dams were to be removed. Ms. Bowman, have you given some thought to that? I know your organization is well respected for your efforts to keep rivers free flowing and pristine. I would have a bit of a concern, if we removed a dam, about the possible effect of carrying silt down river and increasing TMDLs. What is your thought on that?
Ms. BOWMAN. Well, it depends on the dam and depends on the river, whether it will improve water quality or degrade water quality by increased sedimentation. That is one of the things you need to look at.
But if a dam is heavily sedimented in, sometimes it will help to remove—to allow that sediment to pass naturally down the river, rather than being collected behind the dam and accumulate the toxins in the sediment and then release in high flow events. And sometimes it helps to, if they are very toxic behind the dam, you need to take those sediments out through dredging or in a way of safe disposal of those and not let them disperse downstream.
Mr. BAIRD. Would you envision that we would need to go through some NEPA process as part of a decisionmaking process for dam removal?
Ms. BOWMAN. Yes, the USDA had recommended that NEPA is considered as well as cost-benefit analysis in this. We would support that, that any time you are looking at altering a dam structure, whether it is repair or removal, you need to look at the environmental impacts of it. And it is not rocket science, but I think it is very important to look at it.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAIRD. Would that need to be added to this legislation as it currently exists?
Ms. BOWMAN. We would support the USDA's recommendation to include that as well as a cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank the witnesses very much for being excellent resources for the committee. We have come to depend upon people like to you guide us and educate us. We do very much appreciate your input.
I want to thank the members for their attendance and their thoughtful participation. Thank you very much.
The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]