Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PROPOSALS FOR A WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Wednesday, March 8, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 11:55 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Subcommittee meets to receive testimony from distinguished Members of Congress regarding projects and policies for consideration in the upcoming Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Enactment of a water resources bill is a high priority of this Committee.
Our intent is to receive testimony and gather information over the next several weeks so that we can be in a position to move comprehensive legislation in the spring. This is no small task but given the growing needs and opportunities to improve our water transportation infrastructure and restore the environment, and the two are compatible, we must rise to the challenge and move forward without delay. To that end, we intend to hold another hearing before the end of the month on the Administration's legislative proposal. In the meantime, we will continue to gather comments and recommendations from colleagues, concerned citizens and public agencies. It will be, as with previous efforts, an inclusive and bipartisan process.
Let me now turn to the Ranking Democrat of the subcommittee, Mr. Borski, for his opening statement.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to echo your words, to invite our colleagues with their testimony today, to welcome them and to assure them, as you have already, that this is a committee that works in a bipartisan fashion and these projects are extremely important to members in their districts and they are extremely important to the subcommittee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Our first panel consists of: Doug Bereuter of Nebraska; Mr. Ray LaHood of Illinois; Mr. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota; and Mr. James P. McGovern of Massachusetts.
Position has privileges. Three of the four are members of the Subcommittee. Mr. Bereuter will go first because he is chairing another very important hearing almost simultaneous with this and then we will proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEBRASKA
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Borski and members of the subcommittee, and my fellow members. I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence here. The hearing begins at 12:30 p.m.
I want to express my appreciation for an opportunity to present the requests and recommendations to be considered in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
This important legislation presents a tremendous opportunity to improve flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental protections. There are several projects and issues of importance to Nebraska which I will work to have included in the final version of WRDA 2000.
I would like to begin by expressing my priorities for funding two projects in the Lower Platte River Basin in Nebraska. I also request permission to submit for the record a statement from John Miyoshi, General Manager of the Lower Platte North Natural Resource District on behalf of that district and the Lower Platte Southern NRD and the Papio, Missouri NRD. He is accompanied by the fine group of people right behind me: Jane Daufeld, Doris Karloff, Mike Moran, Mike Sotac, Jim McDermott, Mike Lauver. These people represent the NRD, a distinguished county supervisor, a city council person from Wahoo, the home office of David Letterman, by the way, and the county seat and the county I now live in.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As Mr. Miyoshi explains in his statement, ''The Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance began in 1996 with the goal of approaching resource protection management in a comprehensive and a unified manner. The Alliance is supporting the authorization of three projects proceeding from Section 503 of WRDA 1996.''
I want to express my strong support for the Sand Creek Watershed Project in Saunders County, Nebraska which is strongly supported in Mr. Miyoshi's statement on behalf of the NRD. The proposed project—approved by the State of Nebraska—which is a result of the Lower Platte River and Estuary Flood Control Study is designed to meet Federal environmental restoration goals, help provide State recreation needs, solve local flooding problems and preserve water quality. It is sponsored jointly by the Lower Platte NRD, the City of Wahoo and Saunders County.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks and I will try to summarize to cut the time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is fine.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would also support authorization of the Antelope Creek Project. Antelope Creek runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The purpose of the project is to solve a multifaceted problem involving the flood control and drainage problems in that creek as well as existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of a broad land use issue agenda. I continue to have a strong interest in this project because I am responsible for stimulating the City of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South NRD and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify the effective flood control system for Antelope Creek and the downtown area of Lincoln.
There are great details about the current problems we face and the infrastructure which is in jeopardy. I want to finally, however, mention the Missouri River Mitigation Project. In 1986, Congress authorized $50 million, $79 million in today's terms, to fund the Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat that was lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick Sloan Plan. At that time, the Corps did not choose to include funding requests for implementing the act in their budgeting process. That is why I, along with members representing four States, bordering the channelized Missouri River in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri have been very active in providing assistance with the help of this committee and the appropriators of the Missouri River Mitigation Project.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Corps has now come in with a valid request and we are very much supporting it. There is an estimated 475,000 acres of habitat lost in these four States as a result of the channelization. This will help restore some of the wildlife, the flora and fauna in this area and I ask for its favorable consideration in extension and increasing the acreage limitation for the four State region.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Before you depart, I would like to acknowledge the leadership you have provided on this Subcommittee in providing sound, Federal investments in water resources infrastructure. As you noted, you do have a number of constituents here and they have provided testimony for the record on several potential Corps of Engineers flood control and environmental restoration projects. I want to thank them for their input and thank you for your very valuable contribution.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Next, because his account is current, my former roommate, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RAY LAHOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not going to read my entire statement but if it could be entered in the record, I would appreciate that.
Let me just highlight for you the fact that the Illinois River is about 200 miles in my congressional district, but more importantly, it runs from Chicago to Alton. Under the leadership of our governor and lieutenant governor, we are undertaking a very, very significant project to try and incorporate a number of different things that currently exist within the Federal Government and within the State government to do a number of things.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Illinois River provides commerce and transportation for agricultural products and a lot of other commerce up and down the river. It is a great recreational resource and also provides aesthetic value to many communities all up and down the river. Our problem is it has been silting in, it has been difficult. We have a massive conservation program going on called CREP which pays people along the river to set aside land. We are beginning to see some success. We have some people developing an innovative dredger to really help get the silt out.
We want to have included this bold new proposal as a part of the WRDA package and program this year because we think it makes sense and we think it fits. So our proposal is for inclusion of the Illinois River and our new dynamic program as a part of WRDA. It is important and we have the support of our delegation up and down the river, the governor and the lieutenant governor. I have met with your staff, I have met with staff of the Agriculture Committee and others.
So rather than boring you with recitation of my testimony, I will leave that for the record and say we appreciate the opportunity to present our statement and to say a word or two about this important initiative for Illinois. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this initiative. Thank you for the opportunity to appear and offer our testimony.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
This is a rather ambitious undertaking and it is going to be a costly one, but a very important one. I think you have done a very good job of laying the groundwork so that we are tuned in. You have some important allies within the Illinois Delegation as you well know and this is something we are going to look at very carefully.
Thank you for your leadership and your input.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Now we will go to Mr. McGovern. Mr. Pomeroy, we are not penalizing you because you are the only panel member who has not seen the wisdom to endorse H.R. 1300, Superfund Reform, but since the others are, we thought we would give you a little more time to think about it and we go to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who voted for that bill reported out of this Committee by a bipartisan 69-2 vote. Take note, Mr. Pomeroy.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. McGovern?
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. MCGOVERN. I hope the Chairman will remember that during the markup with my requests.
I want to thank you for allowing me to testify before the subcommittee about the Westport River Dredging Project which is in Westport, Massachusetts. Specifically, I am requesting that the subcommittee provide a $2.5 million authorization for dredging the Town Docks and West Branch sections of the Westport River in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
The Westport River Dredging Project is crucial to the safety, environmental welfare and commercial viability of the Westport River Region. The Westport River is used commercially and recreationally by over 1,200 boats ranging from 65 feet to 12 feet. The entrance to the West Port River and its channel, in general, are steadily shoaling and as a result, the channel is no longer navigable on all tides and not readily navigable on most tides for some vessels. Skippers of the fishing fleet are reporting with alarming regularity that they are bottoming out coming and going from the Town Docks to the river entrance. This situation is becoming increasingly dangerous. Further the shoaling has an adverse effect on the health of the river. It inhibits the river's natural flushing and cleansing process.
The Westport River Channel needs to be reopened to a minimum depth of 10 feet at Mean Low Water for the river entrance at The Knubble to the Route 88/Fontaine Bridge. The area of greatest shoaling is the stretch between Green Can 15 and Green Can 19, but the channel changes frequently and other areas are subject to shoaling and reduced draft as well.
I have visited the river and this is a real big problem. Unless something is done very soon, the fishing industry and the recreational boating that goes on in that area are going to cease. The town is in desperate need and it is for these reasons that I am asking the subcommittee to look with favor on this request.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very, very much, Mr. McGovern. We have at least had the preliminary review and it is a meritorious request. I think on both sides you are not going to have any real problem. The challenge, of course, is going to be with the appropriators so we wish you well in that endeavor.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Now we turn to the long suffering Mr. Pomeroy, a good friend and colleague from the great State of North Dakota. Mr. Pomeroy?
TESTIMONY OF HON. EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. POMEROY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I would note that each of the committee members preceding me in testifying have not used their allotted five minute time. This is a very succinct committee. I can tell that right now.
I am here to talk about a Federal decision, the consequences that have flowed from that decision for the City of Williston, North Dakota, the commitment made by the Federal Government at the time of the decision, and why we need to make good on that commitment in the WRDA bill.
North Dakota is a semi-arid State; the Missouri River flows through the western part of that State. As part of the Pick Sloan Project on the Missouri River, a major dam was placed on the Missouri creating the Lake Sakakawea Reservoir from behind the Garrison Dam on the Missouri.
There is a community 50 miles upstream from the Reservoir on the Missouri River named Williston, North Dakota. As the reservoir elevation was under debate in the 1950s, the mayor of Williston cautioned against setting it unfortunately where they ultimately set the reservoir level. He instructed the Congress at that time, and the Corps at that time, that setting the reservoir too high would slow the water upstream and you would have siltation dropping out of the river creating gradation problems, the loss of the river channel.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Unfortunately for Williston, the decision was made to set the reservoir at the higher level. Unfortunately for Williston, two rivers, the Yellowstone River out of Montana and the Missouri River out of Montana, meet ten miles west of town and these rapidly flowing rivers carrying all of the silt out of the Montana as they flow into North Dakota hits about right at the confluence of these rivers and begins to slow down and the aggradation begins to take away the river channel. We have lost 8 to 10 feet of river channel since the years of that decision.
The effect of that is quite remarkable. This is what happens when you lose a river channel, the water flows everywhere. You have no directed channel from which this may flow. This is a little downstream of Williston, North Dakota.
At the time the decision was made at the reservoir level, assurances were made to Williston that nothing would happen but a commitment was made that if something did happen, the Federal Government would take care of it. It was the Federal Government's responsibility.
As part of preparing for the impact on Williston at the time the project was in its final stages of completion, the Federal Government constructed for Williston a new water intake facility, a new water treatment facility five miles out of town. Unfortunately what has happened is under the aggradation is that the intake facility has already had to be changed and the pipeline bringing the water five miles into Williston has now become endangered. It is 40 years old and it was constructed on a path right along the river. At the time it was put in dry ground. Now most of that line sits 365 days a year under a marsh, marshy, swampy. As the aggradation has occurred, as the channel has filled, this is an area that is under water.
This is a city in the dry, northwestern part of the State with one water line that is under a swampy condition. The result of that is if something happens, they cannot find where it happens. This happened in 1998. Fortunately they were able relatively quickly to locate the line but the National Guard of North Dakota actually had to be involved in getting water supply to Williston during that period of time.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What we need is a different water line. The intake facility is fine but we need a different water line. We are seeking within this WRDA bill funding so that the city might construct this water line. It is a direct consequence of the Garrison Project. The cost of the water line is $3.9 million and unlike when they constructed this the first time, they are not going to have it run anywhere near the river; they are going to have it run up and over land so that we do not have this problem anymore.
Picture yourself in the city leadership position depending upon a single water line to your water source and having that line in a situation where if it breaks, you cannot find the break because it is under a swampy marsh because the river has ceased to have its natural function.
Those are the reasons, Mr. Chairman, for this request. We thank you for your time and consideration.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
One request we have of you is take a good, hard look at H.R. 1300, the long overdue, much needed Superfund reform legislation.
Mr. POMEROY. As the only former insurance commissioner in Congress, I have watched this where most of the funds expended have been on litigation and not on solving problems. I have evaluated that legislation and will continue to do so. I do think the Chairman should get significant pats on the back and commendation for trying to bust through where we are stuck and make a common sense solution so we can get things cleaned up in the most cost effective way.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks for those kind comments. I appreciate it.
Without objection, the opening statement of our distinguished colleague, Mr. Barcia, will be included in the record among those opening statements.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Since there are no further Members here for testimony, this hearing is adjourned.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[insert here]