[Senate Hearing 111-417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-417
FARGO-MOORHEAD METRO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AND RED RIVER BASIN FLOOD
CONTROL ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MAY 27, 2009--FARGO, ND
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-140 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM HARKIN, Iowa GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Doug Clapp
Roger Cockrell
Franz Wuerfmannsdobler
Scott O'Malia (Minority)
Brad Fuller (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan..................... 1
Statement of Senator Kent Conrad................................. 3
Statement of Senator Amy Klobuchar............................... 6
Statement of Representative Earl Pomeroy......................... 7
Statement of Representative Collin C. Peterson................... 7
Statement of Colonel Jon Christensen, District Commander, St.
Paul District, Army Corps of Engineers......................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 10
Statement of Dennis Walaker, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota.......... 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 13
Statement of Mark Voxland, Mayor, Moorhead, Minnesota............ 14
Statement of Jerry Waller, Chairman, Clay County Commission...... 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 17
Statement of Keith Berndt, Engineer, Cass County, North Dakota... 18
Prepared Statement........................................... 18
Statement of Hon. John Hoeven, Governor, State of North Dakota... 30
Prepared Statement........................................... 32
Statement of Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh, Division
Commander, Mississippi Valley Division, Army Corps of Engineers 33
Prepared Statement........................................... 37
Statement of Mark Holsten, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources on Behalf of Hon. Tim Pawlenty, Governor,
State of Minnesota............................................. 38
Prepared Statement........................................... 40
What can the Federal Government do to Help Minnesota Reduce
Future Risk From Flooding?..................................... 41
Prepared Statement of Gerald H. Groenewold, Director, Energy and
Environmental Research Center.................................. 49
Prepared Statement of the North Dakota Farm Bureau............... 50
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Mathern, District 11, North
Dakota Legislative Assembly.................................... 50
FARGO-MOORHEAD METRO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AND RED RIVER BASIN FLOOD
CONTROL ISSUES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations,
Fargo, ND.
The subcommittee met at 3:38 p.m., in room 201, Fargodome,
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Dorgan.
Also present: Senators Conrad and Klobuchar and
Representatives Pomeroy and Peterson.
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing
of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. Even though
this is a field hearing, it is the same as if the hearing were
being held in my hearing room in Washington, DC. There will be
a record of the hearing that will contain the testimony of the
panelists and the witnesses and in addition to that, we would
invite any written testimony that anyone wishes to submit to
supplement what we will hear today to be submitted via e-mail
by June 12, 2009. And you may call my office or see one of my
staff for the e-mail address in order to submit additional
written testimony that will become a part of this record.
We will receive testimony in two panels today. The first
panel will consist of Colonel Jon Christensen, the Commander of
the St. Paul District of the Corps of Engineers; the Honorable
Dennis Walaker, Mayor of Fargo, North Dakota; the Honorable
Mark Voxland, Mayor of Moorhead, Minnesota; Mr. Keith Berndt,
the chief engineer of Cass County; the Honorable Jerry Waller,
chairman of the Clay County Commission of the Minnesota Board
of Commissioners.
Our second panel will consist of Brigadier General Michael
Walsh, Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division of the
Corps of Engineers; Commissioner Mark Holsten, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of Governor Tim
Pawlenty; and Governor John Hoeven of North Dakota.
It is a testament of the importance of this issue that all
of you have come before us today. I want to make a few brief
comments about the hearing, and then I will call on my
colleagues. I would hope that my colleagues will have about a
2-minute opening statement. Then we will get to the witnesses,
and then we will have plenty of time for questions. We do have
eight witnesses today. So I do want to see if we can get to
them as quickly as possible.
Let me say that in the aftermath of the very serious flood
fight that occurred here in the Red River Valley, and
especially in Fargo and Moorhead, this past spring, there are a
number of questions for the people of the Red River Valley and
for the people of Fargo and Moorhead. And the central question
is can more be done to reduce these flood threats? And if so,
what is it that can be done?
If one believes there is more storage in the valley that is
available in order to hold some water back, what authority
exists to achieve that storage? What is the cost-benefit of
projects that invest in that storage?
Second, if Fargo and Moorhead and the citizens of those two
communities wish to have a greater level of flood protection,
then what specifically would they like the Corps of Engineers
to study? What concerns do they have? What cost-benefit test
would be met by which proposals? And are they able to provide
the local funding? Because these flood control projects are 65
percent federally funded and 35 percent State and locally
funded.
This subcommittee is the place where the Corps of Engineers
water programs are funded, but it is not top-down. It is
instead bottom up. That is, the Federal Government does not
move around the country trying to determine where we can build
additional flood control projects.
The Corps of Engineers is necessarily involved in virtually
every flood fight, and they do a great job. But when a flood
fight occurs, the question for local folks is: is there more
that can be done? Is there a project that meets a cost-benefit
test that is in the national interest that represents a
consensus of that which we would like to build?
At that point, this subcommittee would then, along with the
relevant subcommittee in the House of Representatives, begin
funding this through the Corps of Engineers appropriation.
This is one region, one river, and one cause, in my
judgment. We had a meeting in Washington, DC about 3 weeks ago
and I think in that meeting engaged in some constructive
approaches. That meeting was going to result in additional
meetings, which I understand have occurred between the
communities of Fargo and Moorhead, and between Clay County and
Cass County.
The issue today and what we hope to put on the record today
is a timeline by which we might determine what projects might
be worthy of consideration and what kind of consensus can and
will exist, if any, of a project that this region wishes to
fund.
One potential result is to do nothing, and I say that only
because I think most of us are gathered here because we watched
this valiant flood fight in the Red River Valley and believe
more needs to be done. I personally believe that more needs to
be done and a comprehensive flood control project needs to be
built.
But in the absence of a local consensus, one prospect is to
have no comprehensive project and every single spring live with
the anxiety of whether this will be the year that the river
wins. Or will this be one more year in which we wage a valiant
effort and fight the river to a draw?
This is not the only place in the country in where we have
flooding, but the Nation was fixed on this issue for some weeks
this year because the question was would this region make it
through? Would there be catastrophic flooding?
The answer was not this year. And a substantial amount of
great work was done--in many cases, by people in this room--to
avoid the substantial cost of having lost to the Red River.
From my standpoint, I would say that my hope coming from
this and other similar meetings would be a series of
alternatives around which a local consensus has developed and
then from which a more comprehensive flood control project is
considered.
I want to mention as well that my colleagues and I have
talked about and will consider other meetings with other river
systems in our State in the weeks and months ahead because we
believe that, too, is important. This is not just about Fargo
and Moorhead or Clay and Cass. It is about the entire Red River
Valley. And it is also about other river systems that have
exhibited substantial flooding in this year.
So I want to thank all of you for being here. Let me call
on my colleague Senator Conrad.
statement of senator kent conrad
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan.
And first, I want to thank you for convening this hearing.
How fortunate we are to have Senator Dorgan at the head of this
subcommittee at this critical time for our State and our
region. We just could not be more fortunate, and we thank you
for your leadership, Senator Dorgan.
It is fitting today that this hearing is in the Fargodome,
which was home to ``sandbag central'' in the midst of the flood
fight. This is where tens of thousands of people gathered to
put on really an inspirational display of people coming
together to protect their homes, their communities, and their
neighbors. And I can say the eyes of the Nation were on North
Dakota and Minnesota at those moments, and the people of this
country were impressed. They were inspired at the way the
people of our region came together. We can be proud of that.
In fact, I told General Walsh that he is going to have to
start filing North Dakota income tax returns. He spent so much
time here on the flood fight that he now qualifies as a North
Dakota resident.
There is no question it seems to me, that just as we came
together then, we can come together now. And that is really
what is required of us. Because unless we are able to form a
local consensus, there is virtually no chance that we will
secure Federal funding. And I think it is important at this
moment to thank all of those who helped us come together.
Mayor Walaker, Mayor Voxland, thank you for your
extraordinary leadership. Colonel Christensen, we will never
forget the way you conducted yourself in these difficult times.
Keith and Jerry, we appreciate so much the leadership that you
provided as well in these difficult times. And General Walsh
and the Corps of Engineers, time after time when we called, you
answered that call. You came here to help make certain that the
decisions that needed to be made were made.
But with all of that, I think all of us understand that a
comprehensive solution is needed for flood protection in this
metro region. As we witnessed this spring, the current
patchwork of flood control projects is simply inadequate to the
task. We can do better, and we must.
As this chart demonstrates--and I am pointing to the one
that are ``steps to permanent flood protection''--there are
several steps that must be taken to achieve permanent flood
protection. It starts at the local level. The Federal
Government will be able to come in later as a partner and
provide a substantial part of the funding, but as we all know,
flood control begins at the local level.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Right now, we are at the feasibility stage on the ladder,
and I look forward to the Corps' update on that study today.
However, as I have said before, each of the partner cities in
this project needs to form consensus on the project. Without
that consensus, there is simply very little chance of Federal
funding.
Our efforts on flood protection do not stop at the city
limits. We must look broadly across the basin and not just this
basin, but the Sheyenne and the James and the Souris in North
Dakota. All of those are going to require a comprehensive
approach and a new strategy.
We cannot rest until temporary flood protection is a thing
of the past. People here deserve the best that we can do. And
the best that we can do is permanent flood protection that
reduces the stress levels that all of us experienced during
this extraordinary period and that protects these cities, these
rural residents, and others across these basins from the
extraordinary flooding events we have seen over the last 12
years.
Again, Senator Dorgan, thank you so much for your
leadership.
Thanks to our colleagues from Minnesota for being here as
well. We really are partners in this, and I believe we will
find a way forward.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Conrad, thank you very much.
Senator Klobuchar.
statement of senator amy klobuchar
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan, for
your leadership time and time again on these flood issues. Your
leadership, we both serve on the Commerce Committee together.
Your leadership on all kinds of transportation issues as well.
And I am glad to be here today and I thank you for including us
in your hearing here in Fargo.
Both of the Mayors thank you for your leadership. I was so
impressed by the efforts on both sides of the river. I will
never forget that day flying over--well, I will never forget it
because I flew over with Collin in his plane, and when we got
into the plane, the battery had died. So I will never forget
that ride, and then the engine flooded, but we got here.
But what I most remember is just the citizens and how they
came together, people of all ages. I met a guy at the flood
control center who lost his home, and he was there 10 hours
later answering calls. I met a woman who was 80 years old who
was there giving out cookies, and it was just an amazing thing.
And there is absolutely no doubt that without the work of
the citizens, things would have been so much worse. So that is
what I most remember, and I remember that people worked
together across both sides of the river, which is exactly what
we need to do today.
Just yesterday, I returned to the valley and was with
Congressman Peterson. We visited with local officials and
community leaders in Breckenridge and in Moorhead and Hendrum,
Crookston, and Oslo in order to get a picture of what was going
on on the Minnesota side of the river, now that the floodwaters
have receded and the recovery and the planning efforts are
underway.
What we heard at those meetings is that there is still a
lot of work to be done. There is a lot of concern in some of
our more rural areas about what the impact of any plans that we
come forward with for the Fargo and Moorhead areas.
Understandably, they have been suffering from flooding for
years and years now.
There is a concern that we look at, as Senator Dorgan and
Senator Conrad pointed out, in the basin as a whole and that we
make sure that we are looking at the other projects that need
to be completed in Breckenridge and Roseau and all parts of
Minnesota, projects that are already in line.
But as I said back in March, in the heartland, a river, a
rising river doesn't divide us. It unites us. And I believe
that is how we will move forward. As both the Senators from
North Dakota mentioned, we are going to have to have consensus
at the local level on this project in order to bring it up
through Kent's great ladder that he has over there. In order to
get the funding, we are going to have to have some agreement on
how we do that.
I think that is very possible. We faced such a close call,
and we know we can't just let it happen again. We know that we
can't figure the sandbags will work forever and ever. We have
to have a long-range plan.
So I appreciate being here and look forward to hearing from
our witnesses to come up with the solution.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much.
Congressman Pomeroy.
statement of representative earl pomeroy
Mr. Pomeroy. I will be very brief. What a strong sense of
deja vu coming into this building and seeing the leaders
assembled, the very people that were directing the effort when
literally thousands of volunteers turned this place into
perhaps the greatest sandbag factory ever assembled.
You know, being part of this community made me so
incredibly proud with the citizens and its leaders throughout
this period. And I was in all kinds of meetings in all kinds of
hours, and I never once heard anybody, from the Mayor on down,
say, ``This is too hard. Let it flood.'' Not once.
It seems to me that even though we are removed a bit by a
few weeks in time, we now face in longer term a very similar
prospect. Are we going to do something about this threat, or
are we going to say, ``This is too hard. Let it flood.''
That is not in our character. It is not in our makeup. We
have proven it again and again. And now we are going to move
long term, work through the many very difficult issues of
coming up with a consensus plan, hands across the river, that
works for both States and works for multiple communities up and
down this river.
Byron, you said it well when you said one region, one
river, one cause. I am very pleased that you brought this
hearing to Fargo-Moorhead and I'm looking forward to hearing
the testimony before us.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much.
Congressman Peterson.
statement of representative collin c. peterson
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank my other
colleagues. I associate myself with the remarks of my
distinguished colleague Mr. Pomeroy.
And I also want to single out, in addition to that, the
Corps and the FEMA people that have done such a great job. And
we were up in Oslo yesterday, and the FEMA folks were in the
senior citizen center. I guess they were taking care of the
folks up there. So we have had a lot of great help through the
whole process.
I don't think I should say much. I probably have said
enough the last day.
But people didn't listen to my whole statement, but as I
have said before, we are going to work together. We understand
that we have to come up with a solution. Fargo-Moorhead is too
big a part of our valley to ignore, and we all understand that.
But there are concerns, and we heard them yesterday.
Beyond the diversion, there are concerns out there. We
heard in Hendrum about the diversion. ``What is going to happen
to us?'' And some questions, Mayor Walaker, about the Southside
project that came up.
And what we have to do here is we have got to get people
understanding what we are doing and get the information out
there. As Byron said, get the consensus. But it is going to
take a lot of education. It is going to take a lot of meetings.
And it is going to be hard, but we can do it.
And so, we are here to do what we can to help on our side
of the river and work together and come up with a solution.
Senator Dorgan. Congressman Peterson, thank you very much
and now to the panel.
First, we will hear from Colonel Jon Christensen, the
Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul
District. All of us know Colonel Christensen. He has been in
many parts of North Dakota, engaged with his staff on a very
aggressive flood fight. We thank you for your efforts for our
State and our region. And Colonel Christensen, you may proceed.
The statements will be a part of the permanent record. So
we would ask all the witnesses to summarize.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL JON CHRISTENSEN, DISTRICT
COMMANDER, ST. PAUL DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
Colonel Christensen. Chairman Dorgan and members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to report on
what the Corps of Engineers is doing to address flooding in the
Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, metropolitan
area.
My testimony will address the regional flood situation and
how the Corps of Engineers proposes to continue to support the
people of the area.
The Corps of Engineers has a long history in the Red River
basin and in the Fargo-Moorhead area. We constructed our first
permanent flood protection project in Fargo in 1963. We have
assisted in 17 major emergency flood fights since 1965, and we
operate reservoirs at White Rock Dam and Bald Hill Dam that
provide flood storage capabilities to reduce the flood peak
levels at Fargo and Moorhead.
The Corps of Engineers initiated the Fargo-Moorhead
Metropolitan Feasibility Study at the request of the city of
Fargo, North Dakota, and the city of Moorhead, Minnesota, in
September 2008. The goal of this study is to develop a regional
system to reduce flood risk. The study includes Cass and Clay
Counties and smaller communities in the area, such as Oxbow,
North Dakota, and Oakport, Minnesota.
The study will evaluate several alternatives, including
nonstructural measures, relocation of flood-prone structures,
levees and floodwalls, diversion channels, and flood storage.
Recently, two public meetings were held in the region as
part of the scoping process for an environmental impact
statement. The Corps will continue to host public meetings to
update the public on the steady progress and to seek feedback
on alternatives as they are developed and the project
progresses.
The Corps intends to have a timely completion of this
study. First, we will develop a number of standalone
alternatives, those being nonstructural measures, levees and
floodwalls, and diversion channels. Second, we will combine the
standalone alternatives to form combination alternatives.
Finally, we will take advantage of the work being conducted as
part of the Fargo-Moorhead Upstream Feasibility Study to assess
the potential benefits that flood storage may provide.
The standalone and combination alternatives will be
screened, and the results will be presented to the public once
complete. At that point, the city of Fargo, city of Moorhead,
and the Corps will decide if continued Federal study is
warranted and if it is likely that a federally justified plan
can be identified.
If there appears to be a federally justifiable plan, the
remaining alternatives with the greatest potential of becoming
the national economic development plan will be carried forward
and optimized, potentially leading to a report of the Chief of
Engineers.
Throughout the study, it will be critical to receive input
from the cities and counties regarding the possible alignments.
Local input will be the foundation for the alternatives and the
basis for future plan development. We are certain that the
project sponsors will need to make difficult decisions and
those decisions will need to be made in a timely manner.
To ensure that a timely completion of the study is
achieved, the Corps of Engineers will need unprecedented
support on the local, regional, and national levels. Timely
communication, input, and decisions will be critical. The
cities and counties will need to work together and to make
difficult decisions when they arise.
During the 2009 flood, unprecedented support was provided
by the Federal, State, and local governments. Those efforts,
combined with the heroic efforts of the citizens, were able to
minimize flooding in a large portion of the basin. As part of
these efforts, the Corps supplied over 11 million sandbags, 141
pumps, 81,000 feet of HESCO barriers, and 70 miles of earthen
levees to the Red River basin.
These efforts, in combination with dam operations,
prevented nearly $3 billion worth of damages. Of that $3
billion, nearly $2.5 billion of damages were prevented in the
Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area.
The citizens of Fargo and Moorhead met the Red River's
challenges this spring, but we all realize there are limits to
the effectiveness of emergency flood fights, and the area
remains at considerable risk from flooding. The Corps of
Engineers is committed to work in partnership with State and
local agencies to develop long-term strategies to manage and
reduce flood risk in the Fargo-Moorhead area and the rest of
the Red River basin.
prepared statement
Again, thank you for allowing me to testify here today. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel Jon Christensen
Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to
appear before you to report on what the Corps of Engineers is doing to
address flooding in the Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota
metropolitan area. My testimony will address the regional flood
situation and how the Corps of Engineers proposes to continue to
support the people of this area.
The Corps of Engineers has a long history in the Red River Basin
and in the Fargo-Moorhead area. We constructed our first permanent
flood project in Fargo in 1963, we have assisted with 17 major
emergency flood fights since 1965, and we operate reservoirs at White
Rock Dam and Baldhill Dam that provide flood storage capabilities to
reduce flood peak levels at Fargo and Moorhead.
The Corps of Engineers initiated the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan
Feasibility Study at the request of the city of Fargo, North Dakota and
the city of Moorhead, Minnesota in September 2008. The goal of the
study is to develop a regional system to reduce flood risk. The study
includes Cass and Clay Counties, and smaller communities in the area
such as Oxbow, North Dakota and Oakport, Minnesota.
The study will evaluate several alternatives, including non-
structural measures, relocation of flood-prone structures, levees and
floodwalls, diversion channels, and flood storage. Recently, two public
meetings were held in the region as part of the scoping process for an
Environmental Impact Statement. The Corps will continue to host public
meetings to update the public on the study progress and to seek
feedback on the alternatives as they are developed and the project
progresses.
The Corps intends to have a timely completion of this study. First,
we will develop a number of stand alone alternatives, those being
nonstructural measures, levees and floodwalls, and diversion channels.
Second, we will combine the stand alone alternatives to form
combination alternatives. Finally, we will take advantage of the work
being conducted as part of the Fargo-Moorhead Upstream Feasibility
Study to assess the potential benefits that flood storage may provide.
The stand alone and combination alternatives will be screened and
the results will be presented to the public once complete. At that
point the city of Fargo, city of Moorhead and the Corps will decide if
continued Federal study is warranted and if it is likely that a
federally justified plan can be identified. If there appears to be a
federally justifiable plan the remaining alternatives with the greatest
potential of becoming the National Economic Development plan will be
carried forward and optimized, potentially leading to a Report of the
Chief of Engineers.
Throughout the study it will be critical to receive input from the
cities and counties regarding the possible alignments. Local input will
be the foundation for the alternatives and the basis for future plan
development. We are certain that the project sponsors will need to make
difficult decisions and those decisions will need to be made in a
timely manner.
To ensure that a timely completion of this study is achieved, the
Corps of Engineers will need unprecedented support on the local,
regional, and national levels. Timely communication, input and
decisions will be critical. The cities and counties will need to work
together and make difficult decisions when they arise.
During the 2009 flood, unprecedented support was provided by the
Federal, State, and local governments. Those efforts combined with the
heroic efforts of the citizens were able to minimize flooding to a
large portion of the basin. As part of these efforts, the Corps
supplied over 11 million sandbags, 141 pumps, 81,600 feet of HESCO
barriers, and 70 miles of earthen levees to the Red River Basin. These
efforts, in combination with dam operations, prevented nearly $3
billion in damages. Of that $3 billion, nearly $2.5 billion of damages
were prevented in the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area.
The citizens of Fargo and Moorhead met the Red River's challenge
this spring, but we all realize there are limits to the effectiveness
of emergency flood fights, and the area remains at considerable risk
from flooding. The Corps of Engineers is committed to work in
partnership with State and local agencies to develop long-term
strategies to manage and reduce flood risk in the Fargo-Moorhead area
and the rest of the Red River Basin.
Again, thank you for allowing me to testify here today. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Dorgan. Colonel Christensen, thank you very much
for your testimony.
Next, we will hear from the Mayor of Fargo, Dennis Walaker.
Mr. Mayor, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS WALAKER, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Walaker. I will not go off the script, and the reason I
will not do that is I understand things can be taken out of
context.
We do not start this by driving something between us. What
we need to do, like Senator Dorgan has said again and again,
that we need a plan, and that plan needs to be comprehensive
for everybody. And my statement in the paper was very simple,
that we need to wait until the engineers, especially the Corps
of Engineers comes back with their preferred alternatives, and
then we can decide and begin the debate.
First of all, Senator Dorgan and members of the
subcommittee, welcome to Fargo, back again. And thank you for
holding this hearing at the Fargodome.
As you know, the spring of 2009 presented the citizens of
Fargo-Moorhead and Cass and Clay Counties with a tremendous
challenge, a record flood event. It seems like we are
experiencing a record flood every 5 years.
Attachment A of this testimony reveals that the past 50
years of flooding in Fargo-Moorhead, it shows that 2009 with a
100-year event or greater. This year's flood also reflected a
recent phenomenon, 8 days from our first flood stage of 18 feet
to a crest of 40.82 feet, 3 weeks earlier than the previous
prediction. Everybody thought it was going to come in April,
and that is normally when it does. But it came in the end of
March.
As a result of this flood record, Fargo and its citizens
had to take Herculean efforts to protect our city and its
property. Attachment B shows the 48 miles of temporary levees
that were built using approximately 300,000 cubic yards of clay
hauled in in 30,000 truckloads, which was constructed in only 8
days. That should not become the norm.
If I was asked at the beginning of this entire flood
whether we could do this or not, I would say absolutely not
because we had never done in the past. Before the clay had to
be collected, we had to remove 100,000 cubic yards of topsoil
and frozen material on top of the clay.
And also, these temporary protective measures required a
volunteer force of over 100,000 people, and they came from
everywhere, from out of State. There are people that came in
their vehicles, slept in their vehicles, absolutely amazing.
And when you talked about what was happening here and over at
the University of Minnesota and in Moorhead, it was absolutely
emotional to walk in and see what was going on here.
The facility, the Fargodome, became the base for our
sandbag operations, running 24 hours a day for the duration of
the flood fight. During the flood, approximately 160 portable
pumps, ranging in size from 2 to 12 inches, ran continually,
including 120 permanent lift stations on storm water.
Fortunately for us, there was about 2 weeks of below
average temperatures that slowed the rate of rise of the Wild
Rice, the Mustinka, and the Rabbit Rivers, which feed the Red
River south of Fargo. However, we cannot factor in cold weather
every time we have flooding conditions.
I remember specifically somebody from the Corps of
Engineers saying the weather was such a great benefit, but he
said after you got hit in the head with a 2 by 4 10 times, he
said, it is about time we got a little bit of help from mother
nature.
Our concern is how do we record floods that keep
reoccurring on a more regular basis? Attachments C and D--and
these attachments are along here--reflect what meteorologists
refer to as a ``wet cycle'' in our weather patterns.
As you can see in these charts, the moisture received in
the area for the past 10 years has been above normal, and the
flows in the Red River have been higher than average. All
winter they were higher than average, and the lakes once again
are full this spring. During the peak of the 2009 flood, the
Red River was running at a rate of over 29,400 cubic feet per
second, while the average 10-year discharge is 10,300 cubic
feet per second.
Attachments E and F show the Red River watershed south of
Fargo-Moorhead and the permitted drainage ditches developed on
the land over the past 50 years. We are concerned that any
additional drainage development will only add to these issues
that we have here in the Fargo-Moorhead area.
I am not faulting the producers in the Red River Valley. If
I owned land out there, I would probably do the same thing. But
people have to understand what is happening here in our cities
on this frequent basis as more drainage is added to our system.
Since we are located in a very shallow drainage system,
more water, rising faster, causes us to protect our community
to a higher level than we ever thought necessary. I thought
1997 was going to be the benchmark for each and every one of us
in our lifetime.
As you can see, the water--if we did not protect ourselves
to 42, 43 feet, you can see on one of the charts there how much
of the city would have flooded--600 single-family homes, 6,000
apartment buildings, displacing over 52,000 residents.
It also would have inundated North Fargo through the North
Dakota State University campus, as well as the neighborhoods
situated along the Red River. Permanent protection through
Fargo, including upstream retention and overland flood
protection throughout Fargo-Moorhead is needed as soon as
possible.
I will make one comment. It got to be an issue. We
understand the concerns of everybody that was here, and I had
one of those concerns myself about evacuating our city. And it
was amazing. You left the decision to us, and we made that
decision together that we would not evacuate our city. And as
it turned out, it worked out well.
But we do not criticize anybody for their concerns coming
to the city of Fargo and asking us to consider evacuation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So that basically sums up. We printed 50 copies. Everything
is available.
So I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the citizens of the Red River
Valley.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Walaker
Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, welcome to Fargo,
and thank you for holding this hearing at the Fargodome.
As you know, the spring of 2009 presented the citizens of Fargo-
Moorhead, Cass and Clay counties with a tremendous challenge--a record
flood event. It seems like we are experiencing a record flood about
every 5 years. Exhibit A of this testimony reveals the past 50 years of
flooding in Fargo-Moorhead, it shows that 2009 was a 100 year event or
greater. This year's flood also reflected a recent phenomena--8 days
from our first flood stage of 18 feet to a crest of 40.82 feet, and 3
weeks earlier than previous predictions.
As a result of this record flood, Fargo and its citizens had to
undertake Herculean steps to protect our city and its property.
Attachment B shows the 48 miles of temporary levees that were built
using 300,000 cubic yards of clay hauled in 30,000 truck loads which
were constructed in only 8 days. Even before the clay could be
collected, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of topsoil and frozen
material had to be removed to get to the clay. Also, these temporary
protective measures required a volunteer force of over 100,000 people
to help fill and place over 3.5 million sandbags. This facility, the
Fargodome, became the base for the sandbag operations, running 24 hours
a day, for the duration of the flood fight.
During the flood, approximately 160 portable pumps ranging in size
from 2 to 12 inches ran continually, including 120 permanent storm
water pumps. Fortunately for us there was about 2 weeks of below
average temperatures that slowed the rate of rise of the Wild Rice,
Mustinka, and Rabbit rivers which feed into the Red River south of
Fargo. However, we cannot factor in cold weather every time we have
flooding conditions.
As waters continued to rise, protective dikes and overland flooding
caused over 20 miles of road closures. Water rescues of stranded
residents had to be conducted in the county. Residents working hourly
paying jobs and service industry businesses depending on patrons were
negatively affected.
Our concern is how do these record floods keep occurring on a more
regular basis? Attachments C and D reflect what meteorologist refer to
as a ``Wet Cycle'' in our weather patterns. As you can see in these
charts the moisture received in the area for the past 10 years have
been above normal; and the flows in the Red River of the north have
also been higher than average. During the peak of the 2009 flood, the
Red River was running at a rate of over 29,400 cubic feet per second
while the average 10 year discharge is 10,300 feet per second.
Attachments E and F show the Red River watershed south of Fargo-
Moorhead and the permitted drainage ditches developed on the land over
the past 50 years. We are concerned that any additional drainage
development will only add to the flood issues we have here in the
Fargo-Moorhead area.
Since we are located in a very shallow drainage system, more water,
rising faster, causes us to protect our community to a higher level
than we ever thought necessary. Attachment G shows what would happen if
Fargo had not been able to protect itself to 41 feet in 2009. As you
can see, the water would have extended from south of Fargo all the way
to Interstate 94 west of Interstate 29 to the West Fargo boundaries,
causing the flooding of over 6,000 single family homes and over 6,000
apartment buildings, displacing over 52,000 residents. It would have
also inundated North Fargo through the North Dakota State University
campus, as well as most neighborhoods situated along the Red River.
Permanent protection through Fargo, including upstream retention and
overland flood protection throughout the Fargo-Moorhead area, is needed
as soon as possible.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the citizens of the Red River Valley.
Senator Dorgan. Mayor Walaker, thank you very much.
Next, we will hear from Mayor Mark Voxland, the Mayor of
the city of Moorhead. Mayor Voxland.
STATEMENT OF MARK VOXLAND, MAYOR, MOORHEAD, MINNESOTA
Mr. Voxland. Chairman Dorgan, Members of Congress, thank
you so much for coming today. We really appreciate this hearing
being held in the Fargo-Moorhead area.
My name is Mark Voxland. I am the Mayor of the city of
Moorhead. We are on the east coast of the Red River.
As a quick aside, our family history shows that in 1893, my
great aunt lost all of her possessions in the Great Fargo Fire.
And then what she had accumulated by 1897, she again lost
everything in the Great Flood of 1897. I think it is amazing
that 100 years later, our family still gets to see record
floods in 1997 and 2009.
Moorhead is a growing city. It is part of the metropolitan
statistical area. The MSA of Fargo-Moorhead is about 193,000.
We are the largest city in the western half of Minnesota. We
have a very stable housing sector in our community, and it is a
very stable sector in this part of Minnesota. We are seeing
growth in new housing starts continuing, even though we are
seeing declines in the rest of Minnesota.
Our population right now is just under 36,000 as of the
2009 State demographer. We are up a little over 10 percent in
the last 8 years.
During the 2009 flood, a flood that when we were talking in
Washington, DC, right around March 15, we were looking at a 37-
foot flood, which is a major flood, but feeling very confident
because of the 1997 flood.
Two days after we got back from Washington, DC, we found
out that it was going to be 39 feet plus. And as each day of
that next week rolled along, we kept hearing the National
Weather Service raising that flood crest peak up a foot. It was
a very trying time for citizens all over the Red River Valley.
In the end, Moorhead, we put in 9 miles of sandbags, about
2.5 million sandbags, as compared to maybe 1 million in 1997.
Once you go up that extra 1\1/2\ feet, that's a major effort in
sandbagging in Moorhead. We put in over 8 miles of clay dikes.
Those were constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. They
were constructed after the first crest, and they were there as
our secondary line of defense.
About 71,500 cubic yards of material is necessary to create
those clay dikes. And one thing that a lot of people in the
country don't understand is we were fighting a flood in March.
Those sand pits were frozen, and those clay pits that we were
getting clay from were frozen. It isn't just grabbing some sand
and bringing it in. And most of the sand did come from an area
about 25 miles away. So there was a real logistical difficulty
as we created that.
As with Fargo, about 100,000 hours of labor, we figure,
from volunteers were put in on this effort in 2009, a Herculean
effort much greater than we ever did see, even in 1997.
We feel that in the long-term this kind of approach that we
had to do in 1997 and again in 2009 is really not sustainable.
We are going to need some interim flood protection measures put
into place so that we can be ready for that once in 100 year
flood event that could happen next year or in 2 or 3 years as
we wait and find out what this comprehensive flood protection
set of measures are going to be. That is going to be the key to
our success in Moorhead and in Fargo in the next couple of
years and down the line.
I think that the city of Moorhead--I know that the city of
Moorhead sees that both Federal and State mitigation programs
are going to be important to us. The State of Minnesota this
year allocated $17.6 million for flood mitigation measures. We,
as a city, will be applying for that. That money doesn't come
to us, but it comes to all cities that need flood mitigation.
And we will be applying and have already started that process
now so that we can start putting in some short-term measures
for flood protection of our public infrastructure.
We are going to be working with FEMA, section 206
mitigation grant programs. One of the concerns we have with
that is you can't build flood structures on land purchased with
206 dollars. We will be working very closely with FEMA to
figure out how we can utilize those dollars to the most
effectiveness to protect our city, but still be able to build
the diking that we feel will probably be needed when we hear
the Corps' final study.
The city of Moorhead does support permanent flood
protection for our cities. We agree with what Mayor Walaker
said. We need to see what the Corps study brings out next year.
I keep hearing December, but I read in the paper today
September 2010, and I thought, well, if it is a misprint, wow.
If it is true, I love it.
But we look forward to what that final is. And we, in the
meantime, know that we have got to figure out a way for
Moorhead and Fargo, Cass and Clay County to figure out some of
those things that need to be decided before we can move forward
with that Corps study.
Simple things like what is the level of protection? Do we
protect both cities to 39 feet, and then the Corps thing is at
42? We need to come up with those numbers ahead of time.
I see the next 18 months, as we look toward Senator
Conrad's ladder, I kind of look at that as Moorhead and Fargo,
Cass and Clay County looking to find the trailhead. We know
that the path is out there, but we have to find where that path
begins. And that is what we are going to be working on very
hard the next 18 months.
Again, we support what the Corps is doing, what the Corps
staff is doing. We are very thankful for what they did for us
in the months of March and early April. We look forward to
seeing and working with the Corps as they come up with that
final set of projects that we could implement.
In closing, I really believe that the economic growth and
vitality of Moorhead and Fargo over the next 50 to 100 years is
very much determined on what we do in the next 18 months to 4
years. We need to find permanent flood protection. We need to
get going on it.
The last statement that I have here talks about
generations, and people need to understand we have to get
together for employment. What I look at is very basic. I have
three grandchildren that live in Moorhead. I will be darned if
I want them to go through what my great aunt went through. So
what I see is really a way that we can protect Moorhead and
Fargo, Cass County, Clay County, and the valley so that my
grandchildren can choose to live in this area and not have to
worry about the flood.
I want them to be able to go out to the Red River and look
at it and say, ``Wow, that river sure is high for a record
flood.'' I don't want them to ever learn how to make sandbags.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Members of Congress.
Senator Dorgan. Mayor Voxland, thank you very much.
Next, we will hear from Chairman Jerry Waller of the Clay
County Commission.
STATEMENT OF JERRY WALLER, CHAIRMAN, CLAY COUNTY
COMMISSION
Mr. Waller. Okay. Thank you, Chair Dorgan, Senators Conrad
and Klobuchar, Congressmen Peterson and Pomeroy, for being here
today, first of all, and, second of all, for allowing us to
offer testimony on some perspectives from Clay County.
Being a lifelong resident of this area, I remember vividly
the flood of 1969, the spring flood of 1969. I remember the
summer flood of 1975, and the greater Fargo-Moorhead
metropolitan area has experienced four major floods on the Red
River since 1997. That tells me that the flood events are
coming more frequently and with more severity, as we have
witnessed this spring.
The property damage and disaster recovery costs resulting
from these flood events have exceeded hundreds of millions of
dollars, not to mention the substantial emotional and mental
anguish suffered by the citizens and the region during each
flood event. And if you could put dollar, hang dollars on
emotions and stress and those things, I would guess that number
would probably be higher than the millions that have been spent
on fixing and doing things from these flood events.
Clay County supports the efforts to design and implement
permanent flood protection measures involving the Red River of
the North and its tributaries. Clay County is appreciative of
the strong support from the States of Minnesota and North
Dakota and our congressional delegations in Washington, DC, and
their willingness to establish a region-wide flood protection
authority, control authority and to help fund this major
undertaking.
Ongoing collaboration among area local governments in
various State and Federal agencies in finding region-wide flood
control solutions is essential. Clay County will continue to be
an active partner in this process.
The Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan flood study presently being
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must incorporate
the river elevation analysis and design considerations used in
the Fargo Southside Flood Control Project to ensure that there
is no adverse flooding impact on the properties on the
Minnesota side of the river as a result of this project.
The permanent flood control measures recommended by the
Corps flood study must address the flood protection in all of
Clay County, including those communities and residential areas,
such as Georgetown and Kragness to the North, the Crestwood
subdivision to the south, which are located beyond the
immediate vicinity of the city of Moorhead in Oakport Township.
We feel strongly that whatever measures--and I am sure there is
nobody in this room that feels differently. But whatever
measures are taken here just do not move this problem
downstream.
Recommendations for long-term flood control structures,
such as a diversion channel and/or dike system, must also
include analysis of cost impacts on local governments, long-
term maintenance plans, and funding mechanisms.
The diversion is going to be a controversial issue. I don't
know that that can be avoided. If you do the math, that would
take approximately 7,500 acres of the richest farmland in the
world out of production, which is an equivalent to 11.5
sections.
But there are other issues. There are aquifers in this
area. The city of Moorhead collects their water from the
Buffalo aquifer. There is another aquifer further to the north,
and there certainly is concern of any diversion and what
effects it would have on the recharging of those aquifers. And
these aquifers, estimates are that these will supply fresh
water to about 50,000 residents, rural and citywide.
It is not clear at this time as to how the recommendations
of the Corps flood study and the ensuing construction and
maintenance of the permanent flood control structures will
dovetail with the scope and the responsibility of the proposed
region-wide flood management authority. A region-wide flood
management authority established by the U.S. Congress must be
granted adequate Federal powers, which will enable it to
effectively implement flood protection measures across the
State border lines in a regional watershed which spreads across
the two States and the two Federal regions.
I want to comment on Colonel Christensen's comments today
on retention. As we met in Washington, DC a month ago or 3
weeks ago or a month ago, whatever it was, we talked about the
three-legged stool approach, and we feel that retention may
have to certainly be included to make for meaningful flood
control.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, again, I appreciate you having me here to testify on
behalf of my colleagues and the citizens of Clay County, and we
certainly hope to work with you as this project moves forward.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry Waller
The Greater Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area has experienced four
major floods on the Red River since 1997. The property damage and the
disaster recovery costs resulting from these flood events have exceeded
hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the substantial
emotional and mental anguish suffered by the citizens of the region
during each flood event.
Clay County supports the efforts to design and implement permanent
flood protection measures involving the Red River of the North and its
tributaries.
Clay County is appreciative of the strong support from the States
of Minnesota and North Dakota and our congressional delegations in
Washington, DC in their willingness to establish a region wide flood
control authority and, to help fund this major undertaking.
Ongoing collaboration among area local governments and various
State and Federal agencies in finding region wide flood control
solutions is essential. Clay County will continue to be an active
partner in this process.
The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Study, presently being
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must incorporate the
river elevations analyses and design considerations used in the Fargo
Southside Flood Control Project to insure that there is no adverse
flooding impact on the properties on the Minnesota side of the river as
a result of this project.
The permanent flood control measures recommended by the Corps Flood
Study must address the flood protection in all of Clay County,
including those communities and residential areas; such as Georgetown
and Kragnes to the north and Crestwood Subdivision to the south; which
are located beyond the immediate vicinity of the city of Moorhead and
Oakport Township.
Recommendations for long term flood control structures such as a
diversion channel and/or a dike system must also include analysis of
cost impacts on local governments, long term maintenance plans, and
funding mechanisms.
If a diversion channel on the Minnesota side is recommended as a
permanent flood protection measure for the area, its alignment, design
and location must be coordinated with the city of Moorhead to insure
that there is no damage to the south branch of Buffalo Aquifer which
serves as the primary source of water supply for the city.
It is not clear at this time as to how the recommendations of the
Corps Flood Study, and the ensuing construction and maintenance of the
permanent flood control structures, will dove tail with the scope and
the responsibility of the proposed region wide flood management
authority.
A region wide flood management authority, established by the U.S.
Congress, must be granted adequate Federal powers which will enable it
to effectively implement flood protection measures across the State
border lines in a regional watershed which spreads across two States,
and two Federal regions.
Senator Dorgan. Chairman Waller, thank you very much.
Finally, we will hear from Keith Berndt, the Cass County
engineer.
STATEMENT OF KEITH BERNDT, ENGINEER, CASS COUNTY, NORTH
DAKOTA
Mr. Berndt. Senator Dorgan, Members of Congress, Senator,
thank you for convening this hearing. And Members of Congress,
thank you for being here this afternoon.
My name is Keith Berndt. I am the county engineer for Cass
County, North Dakota.
As a county, we look forward to working in partnership with
the communities and agencies on both sides of the Red River to
bring solutions to fruition in a timely manner. The economic
future of this metropolitan area and the entire region is
dependent upon timely completion of permanent flood protection
projects.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We are all involved in this historic process to move as
quickly as possible. We must recognize the tremendous risk and
costs associated with every year that passes without protection
in place. We have before us an historic opportunity and an
obligation to future generations to work together as
communities to solve this daunting, but solvable problem.
Thank you. That concludes my testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith Berndt
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Senator Dorgan
for convening this hearing and for your strong ongoing support of
permanent flood protection. Permanent flood protection for the Fargo
Moorhead metropolitan area is critical. As a county, we look forward to
working in partnership with the communities and agencies on both sides
of the Red River to bring solutions to fruition in a timely manner.
The economic future of this metropolitan area and the region is
dependent upon timely completion of permanent flood protection
projects. We urge all involved in this historic process to move as
quickly as possible. We must recognize the tremendous risk and cost
associated with every year that passes without protection in place.
We have before us a historic opportunity and an obligation to
future generations to work together as communities to solve this
daunting, but solvable problem.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Berndt, thank you very much.
I would like to ask a couple of questions and then call on
my colleagues if they have questions as well.
First to Colonel Christensen, you have been looking at
various project options at this point, and you indicated by the
end of May, you thought you would have some preliminary
numbers. What are the preliminary benefits or cost-benefit
ratios for the various project options? Are you prepared to
disclose that to us at this point?
Colonel Christensen. We have done some preliminary cost-
benefit ratio calculations on the options that we have looked
at so far. And what we have looked at is a levee option and a
diversion channel option and a combination of those two pieces.
And right now, without optimization and without taking into
account other facets of the project that we call on board,
stuff like upstream storage and working these in combination
and detail, the levee option comes out to be about 1.0. The
diversion channel option comes out to be 0.65, and the
combination plan comes out to about 0.62.
And again, these aren't optimized and are back of the
envelope-type calculations.
Senator Dorgan. Right. Whatever optimized is, it is a term
of art. If those were the cost-benefit ratios that represented
some final analysis, the levee option would then represent the
only option that would meet the Federal cost-benefit ratio
test. Is that correct?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir. But that is in isolation.
Senator Dorgan. I understand that, but I am talking about
the options.
Colonel Christensen. But of the three options on the table,
that would be the only one that would----
Senator Dorgan. The only one that would meet a test and go
forward would be the levee option?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. A quick question, what information and
decisions do you need from local governments as you proceed
from now until either September or December of next year, and
is that the next decision point in the study?
Colonel Christensen. We are getting everything we need
right now in coordination with the local and the State
governments. We have been working in a very cooperative
fashion.
Basically, what we need is input into what the solutions
are going to be, impacts on what would be the impacts of a
given solution on the community and others around it, and also
we need help in making sure that we go out and sell this plan
in a unified effort to the public.
The next decision point will be this fall, when we will
have a more refined cost-benefit analysis on the various
options that we are going to lay forward. At that time, we are
going to sit down with the local communities and figure out
what is the best proposed solution and whether that does have a
Federal interest.
Senator Dorgan. You say this fall?
Colonel Christensen. This fall.
Senator Dorgan. And what does ``this fall'' mean?
Colonel Christensen. We will go with September, sir.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Colonel Christensen. We will make a decision about whether
we are going to move forward or not, whether there is a Federal
interest, and what the best plan would be.
Senator Dorgan. Can you explain in layman's terms how the
flood protection in a metropolitan area like Fargo and Moorhead
can affect river States upstream and downstream and how the
potential effects of a project like that are addressed as a
part of your study?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir. That is a very complex
question. We start with the levees. Levees can constrict the
water flow through a city, and it could affect the upstream
stage, and it could affect the downstream stage as the water
comes in.
Now there are ways to mitigate that by offsetting the
levees a little bit farther into the floodplain, but there is
always that potential. And we do the modeling to make sure that
those impacts are minimized.
In a diversion channel, you are taking flow around the
metropolitan area. There is always a danger that you pass that
water too quickly and that it will increase the stage in the
communities upstream.
Again, we will do the modeling to make sure that is
minimized, and as the diversion goes around the city, the water
is slowed enough so that it would not have an adverse impact.
But it could have an adverse impact if done improperly
downstream, and it will have the potential to lower the
upstream stage as well.
Senator Dorgan. I am going to send you a series of
questions, and in that series, I am going to ask a number of
questions be answered with respect to the Southside project in
Fargo, its impact on a comprehensive flood control project,
cost-benefit ratio, and so on. I will also request your
assessment of an impact, if any, that a Southside project in
Fargo would have with respect to the city of Moorhead.
So I will submit those for the record, and if you wish to
comment--and perhaps my colleagues will pursue that because I
think we should have some discussion of that here, but we will
also ask that you submit some responses for the record.
Now let me ask the two Mayors to fast forward to the end of
this year. It is December. Do you have some confidence that
there will be a consensus between the two major cities, and
that would include, of course, the counties on some kind of a
flood control project that represents what you consider to be
the interests of both areas?
Are you optimistic that by December, if we meet----
Mr. Walaker. We are always optimistic.
The Southside project, I will take that on first. It
isn't--this didn't just happen overnight. Two years ago, they
brought the plans forward, and there was somewhere around a 6-
to 9-inch increase in the river through Briarwood. There was an
uprising, and basically, I asked staff to go back and reduce it
to zero because that was the only way we were going to get it
passed through the process.
So it didn't start 2 years ago. It basically started 4 or 5
years ago trying to come up with this process. So that is why
some people look at this as a very complex plan, and it is,
extending Drain 27, Drain 53, and so forth into storage and
adding probably at least a section of storage down in that area
and then also these channel cut-offs and so forth. So it is a
complex project. But properly managed and so forth, it has a
zero impact on these areas.
And we have had peer review and so forth. So that is part
of it. If there is any mistake in this process, we did not--we
had 50 or 60 meetings. There has been a group of--from the DNR,
from Moorhead, the city engineer and so forth, a technical
group that have been meeting for over a year. So there is
probably 100 meetings total.
If there is any mistake in this whole process, because
Moorhead was not going to be participating in the cost of that
event, maybe we overlooked that a little bit. So we didn't get
the information out.
There seems to be a disconnect between the engineers and
the elected officials, okay. And I don't mean that to be a
negative. What that is, is that the elected officials that are
out there representing the public feel that they need to
understand the project, and maybe I have spent too much time at
this, and I will take any responsibility for that. That is not
a problem. It is just that frustrations begin and so forth.
And if we are going to debate this in the forum--and we are
not going to do that, right, Collin, because that accomplishes
nothing. We need to allow the Corps of Engineers to do their
process.
Now it doesn't sound like a diversion is going to work
anyway, and maybe you guys are absolutely right. We don't need
anybody to drive a divisive separation of the river. We need to
cooperate.
You told us this specifically, that we need a plan that
both cities can come forward, and we want it done by the Corps
of Engineers. That is why we solicited them to go ahead with
this comprehensive study, when the study for downtown Fargo,
including City Hall, did not have the cost-benefit ratio. So,
that is what we are doing.
If we get some information at the end of this year, that is
magnificent. But we are all waiting for September or December
2010 also to have a preferred alternative.
Senator Dorgan. I am going to ask Mayor Voxland if he
wishes to respond. But Colonel Christensen, would you just tell
us when you did the cost-benefit ratios a few moments ago, was
that for a 100-year flood or a 500-year flood or some other
flood? Tell us what it was you were measuring.
Colonel Christensen. I would have to go for a lifeline on
that, sir, just to make sure that I am correct, 100 year plus 4
feet.
Senator Dorgan. Pardon me?
Colonel Christensen. A 100-year flood plus 4 feet.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Mayor Voxland.
Mr. Voxland. I look back to what the world was like in our
area on March 15, and had you asked that question then, I would
have kind of smiled and chuckled because there was a casual
discussion of different things amongst the group. Starting with
the meeting that you convened in Washington, DC, the city of
Moorhead, Fargo, Cass and Clay County have had one joint
meeting since then. We have another one that they are working
on scheduling for June right now.
My belief is the best way that we are going to get good
cooperation is by having us get together and, first of all, get
to know each other, get to know the first names of everybody
that is around the table, get to know a little bit about them,
and honestly talk about the problems and how we can solve them.
I think that has been happening. It has been happening--as
I look in front of me, it is happening at the national level. I
know it is happening at the State level. It is happening at the
local level.
I think we are going to be a long way toward a final,
cohesive answer by the end of this year. We might not have
everything done, but we will be a long way. And by the time the
Corps project comes out, I think we will be in good sync with
it. I am very confident. You can't be Mayor and be pessimistic.
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mayor Voxland, I am encouraged by
that answer certainly and by the answer of the mayor of Fargo.
Again, I will send a series of questions to the entire
panel for a written response to be included in the record.
Senator Conrad.
Senator Conrad. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And I didn't
have a chance to thank specifically my colleague Senator
Klobuchar for being here and for her leadership. She has just
been terrific to work with on these issues. One thing about
Senator Klobuchar, she does her homework. And so, it has been
great to have her as a partner in this effort.
And Congressman Peterson, I will tell you, you could not
have a better partner in a fight than Collin Peterson. And I
know because we just went through the Farm bill together, and
we were great allies in that fight and will be allies in this
effort as well.
The Mayor, Mayor Walaker mentioned the evacuation meeting
that we had. It really was, I thought, was going to be a
meeting about resources but turned out to be, in part, about
the evacuation. I just want to say, as we went through that
meeting, I thought you, Mayor Walaker, and the Deputy Mayor,
Tim Mahoney, made a very clear and compelling case that you had
taken the responsible steps that would be expected.
You had a plan. You had gotten the vulnerable populations
evacuated. You had voluntary evacuations of the low-lying
areas, and you had issued special alerts to the people who were
between the backup dikes and the main dikes. So I personally
was persuaded you had been fully responsible in an evacuation
planning effort.
I want to ask Colonel Christensen, as I understand it you
have $600,000 available for 2009, $1.4 million for 2010 for the
analysis that needs to be done. Are those the correct numbers?
And do you have, in your judgment, the resources necessary to
meet the timeline for these reviews?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir. Those monetary figures are
correct, and we do have the resources. I have assigned my two
best project managers on this. This is an important project to
the district and to the region. Anything I have asked for from
General Walsh and from Headquarters, USACE, they have promised
that they would give me. So I feel I have the resources.
Senator Conrad. General Walsh has indicated that you will
have available to you the resources that you need to complete
this aggressive timeline. Is there anything that could be done
to provide an even faster result?
Colonel Christensen. In my estimation, no. We have taken
every effort to compress this timeline because we know how
important this is. And this is a very complex issue, as has
come out.
Senator Conrad. Okay. To the Mayors and to the county
representatives, are there any, as far as you can see at this
point, any showstoppers as issues for agreement to be reached
between the cities and the counties?
Mr. Walaker. No. But we need these people here. I mean,
they rotate these guys like General Walsh and Colonel
Christensen every 3 years. Is that going to be a showstopper?
I mean, we brought these people here. They were here during
the flood fight. They understand the problems and as they go
forward. So if you are talking about a showstopper, I think all
of these things can be resolved to some benefit. But to watch
these guys be redeployed, that bothers me a little bit.
Senator Conrad. Let me just say I watched Colonel
Christensen in community after community, and I have high
regard for Colonel Christensen. His professionalism and the
absolute dedication he brought to this, I think all of us
respect.
Mayor Voxland, any showstoppers that you see? We should get
them on the table. If there are things out there that are non-
starters, we need to know.
Mr. Voxland. That I can think of at this point, no. I think
communication is going to be a key. I think one thing that the
four of us, the two counties and two cities, probably need to
do is get together and figure out some way of an instant e-mail
type communication on a very regular basis to see if something
does crop up in the near future and the midterm future so we
can address those right away. But at this point, I see nothing
that would stop it.
Mr. Walaker. How about hand-delivered communications?
Mr. Voxland. No, you are going to have to learn how to do
e-mail.
Mr. Walaker. I know how to do that. I just read it, because
it becomes public record and so forth. That is the point I was
trying to make.
Senator Conrad. Keith.
Mr. Berndt. Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, no, I don't see
any from the county's perspective.
Senator Conrad. And Chairman Waller.
Mr. Waller. Senator, I don't believe there will be any
showstoppers. I believe there are going to be some bumps in the
road along the way because of the different interests of each
community or county, city or county. But I do believe that what
I have seen is that everybody certainly understands the
situation and certainly wants protection for our citizens.
Senator Conrad. Okay, I just want to end on this note, if I
can, with Colonel Christensen, because we know there is one big
potential showstopper out there, and that is the cost-benefit
ratio and the cost-benefit analysis, because if we don't
achieve that, we can't achieve Federal funding.
So I want to make certain that I understood your earlier
answer to Senator Dorgan. With respect to a diversion, your
initial indication is that that would have a cost-benefit ratio
of 0.65. The combination would be 0.62. Both of those would be
far below any cost-benefit ratio that would be acceptable for
Federal funding. Isn't that correct?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir.
Senator Conrad. And so, the only option with respect to
your initial calculations that would qualify for a Federal
project would be the diking approach.
Colonel Christensen. As a standalone alternative, yes, sir.
Senator Conrad. As a standalone alternative.
Colonel Christensen. However, we have to optimize those,
and we have to make sure we are capturing all the benefits.
Senator Conrad. Yes, I understand that you have got a
caveat there, but still you are providing us initial
information that is important for people to understand.
To meet the cost-benefit ratio, my understanding is that
you have to be above 1.0. Is that correct?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir.
Senator Conrad. And your initial indication is we are at
1.0, but that is before optimization. Okay. So we have still
got, hopefully, some benefits to capture there before we get a
final determination.
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir.
Senator Conrad. All right. I thank the chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Just for the record, the calculation you
have just described, that is the comprehensive levee system
without or exclusive of the Southside project or including the
Southside project and the benefits it provides?
Colonel Christensen. It is looking at an alignment that
would be typical of what a levee alignment would be in the city
as a standalone, just as you sketch out what protection would
look like from the city, a typical alignment. I am not sure I
am answering your question there, sir. But it is----
Senator Dorgan. I am not sure I want the answer to the
question. But I will inquire more about that.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you very much.
Just a question for the two mayors, as we can learn a lot
from these crises when they happen and how we can improve
things, I have said a few times that FEMA--in North Dakota and
Minnesota, FEMA is a four-letter word, but it is not a bad one.
Compared to the Katrina FEMA, I think that, once again, just as
in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, we saw a lot of good work
out of FEMA in this area.
Could you talk about your impressions of that and any
improvements you think that could be made as we go forward? I
guess Mayor Voxland first.
Mr. Voxland. I have to say that I was extremely impressed
with our FEMA representatives that were invited into Minnesota,
as I understand that is how the process works. They were very
clear from the start what their mission was. They kept re-
explaining it so that we absolutely understood. I'm very happy
with what they did.
So I would say I can't think of anything that I really want
to fault them on, I'll go into our next steps with FEMA and the
frustration of the 206 funds are probably the only thing that I
have as we go forward, and that is not FEMA's problem. It is
the way Federal law is written.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, and that is actually something
that I have talked to the Secretary of Homeland Security about.
There is this regional funding difference. And you would hope
when an area has the same problem, that there is a way to treat
both sides of the river the same when they are in different
States. But that is something that we need to work on going
forward.
Mayor Walaker.
Mr. Walaker. As I get long in the tooth, I have watched
FEMA grow. Back in 1975, 1978, 1979, FEMA was a depository for
people that couldn't get another Federal job, okay? They had no
skills. The laws were almost obscure.
The rules--and that is the way they wanted it. As far as I
was concerned, that is the way they wanted it. Because the
flood of 1993, when they flooded the Mississippi, we had a
flood up here later on that summer, and it got to be just
absolutely, they were so difficult to deal with.
This year's response, we still have some difficulties. I
mean, but they are following the law as close as they possibly
can. Are we disappointed in some areas? Of course we are. But
the response and the professionalism of the FEMA today is much,
much enhanced over what it used to be years and years ago.
So, as far as the President is concerned, I mean, he was
very concerned that we had all of the Federal help that we
could and that trickle down to the process. And right now,
sure, we still disagree over what was done in the past, the
right of entry and so forth and the particular part of the
cleanliness of the boulevards and so forth and the sand.
I mean, we had 42 miles of dikes in Fargo. So we still have
some of those to deal with and so forth. And we understand that
some of them are going to go away. We are going to do it on PA
and so forth, but they are good.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Colonel Christensen, this was interesting information for
us about the cost-benefit analysis. I know that it is
preliminary. But could you describe to me why that would be a
little more information about the levee plan? Obviously, we had
some concerns about I think Chairman Waller mentioned 7,500
acres. We have heard 9,000 acres of some of what you described,
Chairman Waller, of the most highly productive farmland,
richest farmland in the country that would have been taken out
if only the diversion plan was used.
Was that part of what went into the consideration of the
lower cost-benefit analysis with the pure diversion plan?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, it was. And we only looked at the
Minnesota side initially for this first pass through. We do
intend to look on the North Dakota side as well. But as you
look at both sides of the river initially, it was a little bit
more complicated to do it on the North Dakota side. And with
the time constraints we had, we wanted to see what a cost-
benefit ratio would look like. So we did the Minnesota side
first.
Senator Klobuchar. So you did it on the Minnesota side just
because it was a preliminary thing?
Colonel Christensen. It was a preliminary thing. We wanted
to take a snapshot. It is less complex on the Minnesota side.
There are less railroad crossings, less rivers to cross, less
roads to cross.
Senator Klobuchar. But it still came out with this higher
cost, lower benefits basically, and part of that was this
farmland?
Colonel Christensen. And part of that was captured in the
cost piece.
Senator Klobuchar. I think that is what Collin said. He
just said it differently than you did.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay, so anyway, because we really do
want to make this work so dearly. We care so much about making
this plan work. And so, obviously, hearing this--could you tell
me a little--is good news for us. Could you talk a little bit
more about the levee plan and how this would work?
Colonel Christensen. The levee plan on which we initially
did the calculations was very similar to what they have set up
already in the Southside project. That is the alignment we used
to do the cost-benefit analysis initially.
Senator Klobuchar. And Senator Conrad was asking; you have
to get over a 1.0 cost benefit. Could some of this be--you
talked about the possibilities of retention. We talked about
this with some of our smaller communities, and actually, we
have some ideas about that, some potential places for
retention. Could that bump it up? Again, I know it is still
preliminary.
Colonel Christensen. And that is part of the optimization
piece. We wanted to just get a snapshot of the standalone
pieces, and we still have to pull in the nonstructural aspects
and the retention upstream from the Fargo metro upstream
storage and see how we can incorporate that.
Senator Klobuchar. And that storage could be happening in
both States?
Colonel Christensen. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay, very good, just one last question,
Chairman Waller, when you talked about Georgetown and some of
the other communities are they going to have a seat at the
table as we look at this process?
Mr. Waller. After the first meeting, flood meeting with the
Corps, I don't think it was 15 minutes later, and I got a call
from the mayor of Georgetown, the mayor is certainly concerned
and really wants the information. So these communities want to
be involved. They want to express their thoughts and their
issues and----
Senator Klobuchar. And was this helpful information to you
about the cost benefit? Did that surprise you when you brought
that up in your testimony?
Mr. Waller. Well, from what I gathered in the initial
information that came out, it really talked about what I
gathered was the diversion as well as the levees. And
retention, again, we feel--and I think there are already some
studies out there that indicate that the two alone are not
going to be successful without that third leg of the stool. I
am not familiar with some of those studies, but that is what I
have heard.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much.
For the information of my colleagues, I am going to call on
Congressman Peterson and Congressman Pomeroy. In about 10
minutes, we will have the second panel up. Governor Hoeven came
after we started, he is here and has exhibited great patience
and General Walsh similarly, and we have a representative of
Governor Pawlenty.
So following the questions of my two colleagues, we will be
submitting a list of questions, especially to the Corps, but
also to other witnesses on this first panel. When we receive
the responses, which we would expect within 2 weeks, we will
make the responses publicly available so that everyone has
access to those responses because that will complete the
record. We are not able to ask every question in this
circumstance, but we appreciate the cooperation of the
witnesses.
Congressman Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try to be brief. So this preliminary look included
the Southside project. Is that part of the deal?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. Okay. And when you were talking about
minimizing the effect downstream, when you were asked, you said
you were going to minimize. So with both options that you are
looking at, at this point, there is going to be some effect
downstream probably, right?
Colonel Christensen. There could potentially be, but the
goal is to get that down to zero by minimizing----
Mr. Peterson. Do you think that is realistic to get it to
zero?
Colonel Christensen. Realistically, there will probably be
some effect upstream or downstream, to some small degree.
Mr. Peterson. But we will be able to know----
Colonel Christensen. And we will be able to know by the
hydrological modeling what those effects are and we will make
sure that that is minimized.
Mr. Peterson. And on the Southside project, Mayor Walaker,
I don't know as much about it as I need to, but are you--you
say you have had peer review of it, that it won't affect our
side. I think you have mentioned that.
Mr. Walaker. Well, Briarwood. Briarwood would have had a
significant increase of 6 to 9 inches, and now we have got that
down to zero. So there is a benefit to that whole area, and we
are talking about within the district having retention and more
retention in the legal drains, Drain 53 and Drain 27.
Mr. Peterson. So you have it down to zero now, you think?
Mr. Walaker. Yes, and below zero. There are some
significant improvements there on the Southside project, and
what we are asking the Corps of Engineers to do is to include
that.
If we are going to spend $161 million, we would certainly
like to get some credit for that, and we would like to know
that as soon as possible because there are some aspects of that
project that we could actually start on if there wasn't going
to be any benefit. But the cost-benefit ratio, we do not want
to screw up the cost-benefit ratio for both cities.
Mr. Peterson. One last question, Colonel. We had some
meetings yesterday and last evening, and it was on this
upstream study that was done earlier or I don't know if it was
completed or what exactly happened. But somebody had mentioned
and I think somebody mentioned this at one of our other
meetings that--and I want to understand if this is correct--
that if you had 400,000 acre feet of storage upstream, it would
only affect the crest 1.6 feet. Is that correct?
Colonel Christensen. Those are the figures I have heard,
sir.
Mr. Peterson. That doesn't seem possible.
Colonel Christensen. For the 100-year flood.
Mr. Peterson. Pardon?
Colonel Christensen. For the 100-year flood, 1.6 feet.
Mr. Peterson. I guess I am not enough of an engineer to
understand. Is there any kind of information that would help
the understanding of that? Is there some kind of a paper that
shows that?
Colonel Christensen. We----
Mr. Peterson. Okay. I would like to see it because it just
seems kind of counterintuitive. But I mean, if that is the
case, we struggled to get 20,000 acre feet of storage and
400,000 is only going to give us 1.6 feet, I don't know. It is
going to take a lot of retention to make any difference.
Colonel Christensen. In the cost-benefit ratio, that was
pretty low as we did that study. I think it came out to be
about 0.25. However, we are looking at incorporating some
ecosystem and restoration pieces in there that might drive up
that cost benefit.
And again, it is----
Mr. Peterson. Is that kind of why that study was shelved or
whatever?
Colonel Christensen. We are still working on it, but we
need to capture other benefits besides just the flood
mitigation piece. And it is going to take all of these pieces
together, the nonstructural, the structural, and whatever we
can to pull this in to get that maximum cost-benefit ratio.
Mr. Peterson. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Congressman Peterson.
Congressman Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The questions I had have largely been covered. There are a
couple of interesting items in the testimony that I want to
make sure are reflected in the record, and they are because you
included them. But they deserve some emphasis.
We get into cost-benefit ratio analysis and the Corps has a
very well-designed criteria in terms of how you figure that.
But I think the testimony presents reality in terms of the cost
benefits that we also need to consider. We are going to look at
some very expensive designs going forward.
And yet, according to the mayor's testimony, had we not
protected at 41, water would have extended from south of Fargo
all the way to Interstate 94, west to Interstate 29, to west
Fargo boundaries. It would have caused the flooding of 6,000
single-family homes, 6,000 apartment buildings, 52,000
residents displaced, also inundating north Fargo through North
Dakota State University campus, as well as most of the
neighborhoods situated along the Red River.
That is from the mayor's testimony. And Colonel, your
testimony reflects that the basin protection was achieved with
a heroic effort locally, but the Corps providing 11 million
sandbags, 141 pumps, 81,600 feet of HESCO barriers, 70 miles of
earthen levees, and these efforts prevented nearly $3 billion
in damages. And of that $3 billion, $2.5 billion in damages
avoided were right here in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan
area.
So I think that is the first time I have actually seen a
hard figure on what this successful flood fight yielded in
terms of savings. Is that your testimony?
Colonel Christensen. That is my testimony. And it is a very
complex algorithm when you are doing a cost-benefit ratio for a
project. And I am not even going to pretend I understand----
Mr. Pomeroy. Regrettably, a cost-benefit ratio can't just
say, look, if it floods, it is going to cost you $2.5 billion
in Fargo-Moorhead alone, but----
Colonel Christensen. You have those costs spread over time,
the life of the project, and it is a very complex algorithm.
And like I said, I can't even begin to understand it, and that
is why I have Aaron working on that.
Mr. Pomeroy. We are not challenging the algorithms. We will
work with them. But we do know we have to proceed because even
though these are going to be--these costs are going to be in
the hundreds of millions of dollars. But on the other hand,
this frantic effort involving these temporary measures produced
$2.5 billion worth of savings.
On the other hand, but for the weather turn and freezing
all of that water out in the fields, which allowed for almost a
staged drawdown of the water in this area, but for that freeze,
we might not have made it. Is that your evaluation?
Colonel Christensen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pomeroy. So that is tremendous risk. If you were
running this like a business, you wouldn't want to take that
kind of risk, this heroic effort, getting a break from the
weather, and by the skin of our teeth avoiding a $2.5 billion
hit.
So thank you very much. I look forward to the next panel
also.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much.
Let me thank all of the witnesses. You will be receiving
from us a list of questions that we hope you would submit back
in 2 weeks.
Thank you very much for your testimony today.
We will ask the next panel to come forward. Is the Governor
in the room? All right, we ask that the Governor and General
Walsh come forward. Also, Commissioner Mark Holsten, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of Governor Tim
Pawlenty.
Let me ask that you be seated, please.
Is Mr. Holsten in the room, Mark Holsten?
Governor, you came after the hearing began. We appreciate
your patience, but we wanted especially to invite you and
Governor Pawlenty, as well as Brigadier General Walsh, to be
with us today. I appreciate the fact that you were able to
listen to a fair amount of the testimony from the first panel.
I think it is important to point out that you, Governor
Pawlenty, and a lot of folks at the State level, both Minnesota
and North Dakota, played a very significant role in the flood
fight this year, and we appreciate that.
And General Walsh, as Senator Conrad indicated, you are
almost becoming a permanent resident up here, and we appreciate
your work as well.
Let us begin, Governor Hoeven, with you, and we appreciate
your being here. As I indicated to the previous panel, your
full testimony will be in the permanent record, and you are
welcome to summarize.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA
Governor Hoeven. Thank you, Senator.
And greetings to you, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy,
Senator Klobuchar, good to have you on our side of the river,
and also Representative Peterson.
I appreciate this meeting today and also the meeting in
Washington, DC, where we brought local leaders, State
officials, and, of course, the Federal delegations together to
talk about flood protection in the Red River Valley. And
really, it is a bi-State effort. It is a regional effort. And
we certainly recognize that this is about permanent flood
protection for the Fargo-Moorhead area, but really, it is about
water management in the Red River Valley basin.
And so, right at the outset, once again, I want to affirm
our desire in North Dakota to make sure we are working with our
friends in Minnesota so that this benefits people on both sides
of the Red River.
I also want to start out again thanking the people of
Fargo, of Cass County, of the Red River Valley in North Dakota,
and of Moorhead and Clay County, and the Red River Valley in
Minnesota for the tremendous effort they put in during the
flood fight this past spring. And the outstanding local
leadership, Mayor Walaker and all of the local officials here,
the county officials, and the same for Mayor Voxland, and both
city and county officials on the Minnesota side of the river as
well. It was unbelievable.
And I think people all over the Nation saw North Dakotans
and Minnesotans doing just an amazing job battling the
floodwaters. But the thing is we can't go through that every
year. We have got to get permanent flood protection. And I
think that the real issue is how do we get this thing going?
How do we get permanent flood protection going?
And I have looked at least at the preliminary alternatives
that the Corps has brought forward, both the levee alternative
and also the east diversion alternative, and I know they have a
hybrid as well.
And I purposely started my comments out--and I have
submitted written testimony, which is longer, and obviously you
can look at. But I purposely started my comments out from the
standpoint of this has to benefit people on both sides of the
river. That is how we are approaching it. But at the same time,
we are very anxious to get started.
And the city leaders in Fargo and in Cass County have spent
a lot of time and effort, approximately 4 years, on the
Southside flood protection project. And I guess what I would
like to offer is that that, I think, could be a good option as
Phase I of a phased-in approach, okay?
And there are a number of benefits to doing it that way,
understanding, again, that this is part of a larger regional
project. This is part of water management in the basin. This is
part of doing more with storage of water upstream, but that you
don't eat the whole apple in one bite. We want to get going.
And so, from the State perspective and, I think, from the
community's perspective, we would be in position to offer that
up as a phase one approach to the larger Corps-sponsored
project. It is approximately $161 million from the States, and
we have $75 million. It is ready to go. The community is
working on their $75 million. We have approximately $11 million
in FEMA funding. That is the $161 million.
We could get that project going. It would provide flood
protection south of I-94, which is certainly a growth area for
the community, and the project has been constructed in a way
where there is no negative impact downstream. It does not raise
water levels at all downstream on either the North Dakota or
the Minnesota side of the river.
Also, it would give us time to complete the full-blown
plan, as well as get appropriated funding for it. So I offer
that up as an option or an alternative to begin the process,
get it going on a phased approach. That would also then put us
in position to have time to get the appropriation for the full
Corps-sponsored project. And I understand a Corps-sponsored
project typically is 65 percent federally funded, which means a
35 percent non-Federal share.
So the keys for us would be that the investment that goes
into this phase one would be credited toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the larger project and, second, that it
would be taken into account properly in the cost-benefit
analysis.
Now I offer this as an alternative, as an option, provided
that the community of Fargo is comfortable moving forward, the
community of Moorhead, Cass County, Clay County, and the
region. I also offer it up as a Phase I, if you will, to get
going on the flood protection, recognizing that it is only part
of the larger regional effort for flood protection and water
management in the Red River basin.
And so, I think, again, we are open to any and all options,
but we are anxious to get going. Along that line as well, I
have talked to Governor Pawlenty, both before, during, and
after the meeting we had in Washington DC, and we have offered
to enter into a State-to-State compact, which could include
Federal participation or not as well.
And I am waiting to hear back from Governor Pawlenty. He
has been--I know he is always busy. He has been particularly
busy as of late. But we have offered up a compact approach
between the States, and we are waiting to hear back at this
point as to how he would like to approach that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So I guess those are my comments. Again, I have submitted
written testimony, but appreciate the willingness of people to
come together. And again, I want to express our desire, on
behalf of the State of North Dakota, to move the process
forward and do anything we can to work with everyone at the
local level, the State level, and with our Federal delegations
on both sides of the river to advance the ball and get the
permanent flood protection going.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Hoeven
Good afternoon, Senator. Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen.
Although the waters have receded, concern about flooding in the Red
River Valley is still at the high water mark.
As we continue our efforts to recover from the floods of 2009, we
must not take our eye off the ball--and that ball is permanent,
effective, and reliable flood protection for the Fargo-Moorhead area,
as well as for outlying communities.
The Red River of the north has exceeded flood stage--that is, 17
feet--in roughly half of the last 100 years. This year, the Red River
exceeded flood stage for more than 60 days, and fell below flood stage
just last week.
The people of Fargo and Cass County, the mayor, commissioners, and
other local leaders did an outstanding job of battling the flood. We at
the State level did all we could to support the flood fight with the
North Dakota National Guard, DOT, the Highway Patrol, and other State
resources.
Clearly, we need more permanent flood protection for the Fargo-
Moorhead area, and we need to coordinate development of that flood
protection with additional measures and better water management
throughout the Red River Valley on both sides of the river.
We are committed to working with all parties--the cities, counties,
States, and Federal Government--to arrive at a solution that addresses
everyone's concerns, and that doesn't adversely affect any adjacent
community.
Furthermore, we are committed to doing so in a timely fashion and
with substantial State resources. To that end, we committed $75 million
for permanent flood protection in the Red River Valley prior to the
recent flooding. We would like to see that funding applied to our State
match, and also to the Corps' cost-benefit criteria.
In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a feasibility study
for a Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area flood protection project. Under
the Corps' current schedule, however, they will not even identify a
final plan until January 2010, or begin construction until April 2012.
Two alternatives have initially been advanced: the Levee
Alternative, which would incorporate the Southside Flood Control
Project and cost approximately $625 million; and the East Diversion,
which would essentially create a 30 mile channel around the cities of
Fargo and Moorhead and cost about $910 million.
If the Levee Alternative is selected, we may have the advantage of
being able to get underway more quickly, with the Southside Flood
Protection project as Phase I because that project is already laid out.
The cost of the Southside Flood Protection Project is $161 million.
The State's $75 million, combined with local match and $11 million from
FEMA, would enable the project to get underway, perhaps as early as
next spring. We would like the Corps to help green-light the project by
giving us credit for the non-Federal share of the larger project, as
well as proper treatment in the cost-benefit analysis for the entire
Corps project.
The Southside Flood Protection Project would provide security from
overland flooding that threatens people and property south of I-94, and
also enable the city of Fargo to continue to grow to the south, helping
to maintain the economic vitality of the whole State and region. In
addition, it doesn't create adverse impacts downstream because it
doesn't increase water levels.
With the East Diversion Alternative, it's not clear at this point
whether we would have an opportunity to proceed with an earlier Phase I
option.
With either alternative, however, we need the Corps' help and
cooperation to begin any type of phased approach prior to the April
2012 timeframe they have scheduled for beginning the project.
I encourage the Corps to work with us to provide a phased approach,
if possible, under either option that will enable us to move forward to
construct permanent flood protection before the April 2012 timeframe.
In addition, we have made an offer to the State of Minnesota to
formalize an agreement between our States to cooperate on the
implementation of the Corps' flood protection measures to protect
people and property on both sides of the river.
Considering the millions of dollars expended in the recent flood
fight, this project needs to be a priority.
Thank you for an opportunity to speak to this very important issue.
Senator Dorgan. Governor Hoeven, thank you very much.
Next, we will hear from Brigadier General Michael Walsh,
the Mississippi Valley District Commander of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
General Walsh.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH,
DIVISION COMMANDER, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY
DIVISION, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Walsh. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, members
of the subcommittee.
Before I get to my prepared comments, I just want to again
mention that I was here at ``sandbag central''--I believe you
mentioned it, Senator--and saw thousands of people in this
facility working very close to heavy equipment. And from a
safety perspective, it was just a little bit nerve-racking. But
you guys, the local folks really had a good handle on it and
were able to fill thousands of sandbags and really get it done.
I took that message--I have worked flood fights on the east
coast. I have worked flood fights on the west coast, and I have
worked it on the center coast as well, on the Mississippi and
now on the Red. I explained to a lot of people, as I have gone
around, what I saw in ``sandbag central''--quickly put it on a
truck and race to the levees. And people didn't quite
understand what I meant by ``racing to the levees.'' They
thought racing to the levees to put the sandbags on the levees.
And what I was explaining to them, they were racing to the
levees so that they wouldn't freeze the sandbags. And people
don't understand that as well. And when I explained this to
them, I asked how many go shopping in their local store, most
of them--all of them raised their hand. And I said now how many
times have you seen the frozen chickens or the frozen turkeys
stacked on top of each other? They can't.
So fighting a flood in this area is different than anyplace
else that I have worked flood fighting, and so I really applaud
the people who got it done in this area and was proud to be
part of the team that worked on that.
Senator Dorgan. General, that was an unusual weather
pattern. It is normally much, much warmer up here.
General Walsh. Sir, I worked very closely with the North
Dakota National Guard in Iraq, and they told me how warm it is
here in the wintertime.
Sir, the other thing I would comment on, as you mentioned,
the one river, one region, one cause. I think that is a very
good charge that we should all be looking at.
Sir, while I was sitting here, as you do know, Corps of
Engineers, our employees are not only here in the United
States, but we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have 65 of our
people now in Iraq. And I just got a note from the Chief of
Engineers that while returning back from a project site in
Fallujah, Iraq, on Monday, an IED attacked one of our teams
coming back from that project site and killed our Navy Seabee,
one of our Corps of Engineer employees, and a State Department
employee.
The Chief mentioned that the employee wasn't from my
division, but certainly, it was one of our team members. And I
just wanted to pass that along to the subcommittee that we are
here with you. We are also here and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir, just back to my comments, Chairman Dorgan and members
of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you and
report what the Corps of Engineers has been doing to address
flooding on the Red River and the North Basin.
My testimony will highlight our ongoing efforts to manage
flood risk in collaboration with all levels of government and
to provide the information that each citizen needs to make the
appropriate choices regarding his or her exposure to flood
risk.
The Corps of Engineers, as you know, has a long history in
the Red River basin. The Lake Traverse Project in the
headwaters of the Red was an authorized project that started in
1936. The Bald Hill Dam on the Sheyenne was authorized in 1944.
The Orwell Dam on the Otter Tail River was also part of the
1947 comprehensive plan that was proposed by the Corps of
Engineers and was authorized in the Flood Control Acts of 1948
and 1950.
Now we have also built 5 reservoirs and 10 flood control
projects in the communities on the Red River Valley. We have
provided emergency assistance on numerous times. Our
preliminary calculations for the 2009 flood event shows the
Corps reservoirs, the permanent projects, and the emergency
assistance actions did prevent $3 billion in flood damages in
this event alone.
Nevertheless, many of the areas still sustained significant
flood damages this year, and further action is clearly needed
to address flood action in the region. Flood risk management is
not just a Federal responsibility. Rather, it is a shared
responsibility between multiple State, Federal, and local
government agencies, which has a complex set of programs and
authorities.
The authority to determine how land is used in floodplains
and to enforce flood-wise requirements is entirely the
responsibility of State and local governments. Individual
citizens must also make wise choices to reduce their own flood
risks.
The Federal project and programs like the National Flood
Insurance Program can help mitigate that risk, but it does not
eliminate it. The Government needs to accurately communicate
flood risk to its citizens so that they can make the
appropriate choices.
The Corps is moving away from the paradigm of flood
protection and moving to managing flood risks and working in a
collaborative fashion with all levels of government and private
citizens as we seek a comprehensive solution that could
leverage both Federal and non-Federal authorities and
resources. The measures needed to reduce flood risk go far
beyond the traditional structural solutions of levees,
diversions, and flood storage.
It is important to note that the Corps' objective when
considering Federal investments in flood damage reduction is to
contribute to the national economic development that is
consistent with protecting the environment. In short, the
economic benefits of any Federal project must outweigh its
costs, as we have talked about earlier.
But the low-hanging fruit on the Red River basin has been
largely picked. For a variety of reasons, we have struggled to
find the environment, the economically justified solutions on
proposed projects in the recent past.
Because the Red River floodplain is extremely flat, local
levee projects often have no high ground to tie into. Urban
development sits directly on marginally stable riverbanks, so
there is little room to build a permanent line of protection.
Even though we can clearly see the potential for
catastrophic damages in the rare and extreme events, such
events do occur. They occur infrequently, but as you figure out
the cost-benefit ratio, the economic analysis stretches that
out.
As a result of these factors, the projects do not tend to
move very well in a justified manner looking at an economic
basis. Many people believe that flood storage is the best long-
term solution to flooding. While we agree that flood storage is
part of the solution in certain circumstances, they are not
always and they do provide significant challenges, and they
vary by region to building reservoirs, and that limits their
effectiveness.
The best reservoir sites in the Red River basin have
already been built, and there are significant environmental
concerns with the remaining if we are looking at modifying
those. Over 90 percent of the wetlands originally present in
the Red River basin have been drained.
Building flood storage on this drained landscape is
possible, especially where drainage systems are less effective.
Unfortunately, because the valley is so flat, off-channel
storage projects typically require hundreds of acres of land to
be surrounded and a constructed embankment around it.
From the Federal perspective, it is difficult to find
economic justification for this type of project, and there is
often local resistance to taking agricultural land out of
production.
Despite these obstacles, flood storage projects can be
successfully implemented by local agencies, and we have seen
that in Cass County at the Maple River Dam. And the North
Ottawa impoundment project and the Bois de Sioux watershed
district in Minnesota are two recent projects that worked well.
The first step in minimizing future flood damage is to
restrict development like in urban, rural, agricultural,
industrial, and commercial areas, in areas that are prone to
flooding, in the floodplains. We urge communities responsible
for making land use decisions to act wisely in this regard and
restrict development in areas that are known to be at high
flood risk.
If communities can limit development within floodplains,
the largest and most expensive issues related to flood risk
management has been resolved before there is even an issue to
be addressed. The Corps is currently engaged with several
construction projects on the Red River basin, including the
Wahpeton in North Dakota, Breckenridge, Fargo, Roseau in
Minnesota, and we are also studying projects in Ada and the
Wild Rice River basin, as well as Devils Lake, the Fargo-
Moorhead project that we are talking about today, and many of
the Red River watershed projects that are upstream.
Rather than describing those in detail, I will provide a
fact sheet for you guys to go through later. But the Corps is
committed to completing these studies and projects with both
our Federal and non-Federal funding as it is allowed.
I would like to highlight one additional study. That is the
Red River basin-wide watershed study. This is a study that
began in June 2008, and its purpose is to develop a watershed
management plan for the entire Red River basin.
The first study task was to collect detailed topographic
information using LIDAR technology in cooperation with the
International Water Institute and several local partners. The
data from this effort is already being used to inform
decisionmakers.
The next step is to use this information and put together
topographic data to build and refine hydrologic and hydraulic
models, then using those models to guide watershed management
planning throughout the basin.
This study is not intended to recommend or justify Federal
projects. Instead, it is to provide better tools and data for
local and State decisionmakers.
In conclusion, the Corps of Engineers is committed to
working with our partnerships and partners with the State and
local agencies to develop a long-term flood risk reduction
strategy. The Federal projects will never totally eliminate
flood risk in the Red River basin. Citizens need to take
responsibility for reducing their own flood risks.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Where Federal projects can be justified, we will pursue
them in concert with the local communities as they so desire.
Where Federal studies can inform local decisionmakers, we will
work with the project partners to conduct them. All levels of
government must work together to manage flood risk and empower
citizens to make wise choices.
Thank you for allowing me to testify here today, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh
Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to
appear before you to report on what the Corps of Engineers is doing to
address flooding in the Red River of the North basin. My testimony will
highlight our ongoing efforts to manage flood risk in collaboration
with all levels of government and to provide the information each
citizen needs to make appropriate choices regarding his exposure to
flood risk.
The Corps of Engineers has a long history in the Red River Basin.
The Lake Traverse project in the headwaters of the Red River was
authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1936. Baldhill Dam on the
Sheyenne River was authorized in 1944. Orwell Dam on the Otter Tail
River was part of a 1947 comprehensive plan proposed by the Corps and
authorized in the Flood Control Acts of 1948 and 1950. We have built 5
reservoirs and 10 flood projects in communities in the Red River
valley. We have provided emergency assistance numerous times. Our
preliminary calculations from the 2009 flood event show that Corps
reservoirs, permanent projects and emergency assistance actions
prevented nearly $3 billion in flood damages in that event alone.
Nevertheless, many areas still sustained significant flood damage this
year, and further action is clearly needed to address flooding in the
region.
Flood risk management is not just a Federal responsibility. Rather,
it is shared between multiple Federal, State and local government
agencies with a complex set of programs and authorities. The authority
to determine how land is used in flood plains and to enforce flood-wise
requirements is entirely the responsibility of State and local
government. Individual citizens also must make wise choices to reduce
their own flood risk. Federal projects and programs like the National
Flood Insurance Program can help mitigate the risk, but can not
eliminate the risks. The Government needs to accurately communicate
flood risk, so citizens can make appropriate choices. The Corps is
moving away from the paradigm of ``flood protection'' to one of
managing the risk of floods in collaboration with other governmental
partners and private citizens as we seek comprehensive solutions that
would leverage Federal and non-Federal authorities and resources. The
measures needed to reduce flood risk go far beyond traditional
structural solutions of levees, diversions and flood storage.
It is important to note that the Corps' objective when considering
Federal investments in flood damage reduction is to contribute to
national economic development consistent with protecting the
environment. In short, the economic benefits of any Federal project
must outweigh its costs. The ``low hanging fruit'' in the Red River
basin has largely been picked. For a variety of reasons, we have
struggled to find economically justified solutions for proposed
projects in recent years. Because the Red River flood plain is
extremely flat, local levee projects often have no high ground to tie
into. Urban development sits directly on marginally stable riverbanks,
so there is little room to build a permanent line of protection. Even
though we can clearly see the potential for catastrophic damages in
rare and extreme events, such events occur too infrequently to carry
much weight in the economic analysis. As a result of these factors, the
projects do not tend to be very well justified on an economic basis.
Many people believe that flood water storage is the best long-term
solution to flooding. While we agree that flood storage is part of the
solution in certain circumstances, there are always significant
challenges--that vary by region--to building reservoirs and limits to
their effectiveness. The best reservoir sites in the Red River Basin
have already been built, and there are significant environmental
concerns with modifying the few remaining natural ravines. Over 90
percent of the wetlands originally present in the Red River basin have
been drained. Building flood storage on this drained landscape is
possible, especially where drainage systems are less effective.
Unfortunately, because the valley is so flat, off-channel storage
projects typically require hundreds of acres of land surrounded by
constructed embankments. From the Federal perspective, it is difficult
to find economic justification for this type of project, and there is
often local resistance to taking agricultural land out of production.
Despite these obstacles, flood storage projects can be successfully
implemented by local agencies. The Maple River dam in Cass County,
North Dakota and the North Ottawa Impoundment project in the Bois de
Sioux Watershed District in Minnesota are two recent examples of
locally implemented projects.
The first step in minimizing future flood damage is to restrict
development--urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, and commercial--in
the areas within the flood plain. We urge the communities responsible
for making land-use decisions to act wisely in this regard, and
restrict development in areas that are known to be at high flood risk.
If communities can limit development within the flood plain, the
largest and most expensive issue related to flood risk management has
been resolved before it ever has become a problematic issue.
The Corps is currently engaged in several construction projects in
the Red River basin, including projects at Wahpeton, ND; Breckenridge,
MN; Fargo, ND; and soon Roseau, MN. We are also studying projects in
Ada, MN; the Wild Rice River basin in MN; Devils Lake, ND; the Fargo-
Moorhead Metropolitan area; and the Red River watershed upstream of
Fargo-Moorhead. Rather than describing all of these efforts now, I will
provide a fact sheet with details and points of contact for the
subcommittee members' information. The Corps is committed to completing
these studies and projects as Federal and non-Federal funding allows.
I would like to highlight one additional study--the Red River
Basin-wide Watershed Study. This study began in June 2008, and its
purpose is to develop a watershed management plan for the entire Red
River basin. The first study task was to collect detailed topographic
information using LIDAR technology in cooperation with the
International Water Institute and several local partners. The data from
this effort is already being used to inform decisionmakers in the
basin. Next steps include using the topographic data to build and
refine hydrologic and hydraulic models, then using the models to guide
watershed management planning efforts throughout the basin. This study
is not intended to recommend or justify any Federal projects; instead,
it is to provide better tools and data to local and State
decisionmakers.
In conclusion, the Corps of Engineers is committed to working in
partnership with State and local agencies to develop long-term flood
risk reduction strategies. Federal projects will never totally
eliminate flood risk in the Red River Basin, and citizens need to take
responsibility for reducing their own flood risk. Where Federal
projects can be justified, we will pursue them in concert with local
communities. Where Federal studies can inform local decisionmakers, we
will work with project partners to conduct them. All levels of
government must work together to manage flood risk and empower citizens
to make wise choices.
Thank you for allowing me to testify here today. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Dorgan. General Walsh, thank you very much.
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Mark Holsten, who is here testifying on behalf of
Governor Pawlenty.
Mr. Holsten.
STATEMENT OF MARK HOLSTEN, COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF
OF HON. TIM PAWLENTY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MINNESOTA
Mr. Holsten. Thank you, Senator.
On behalf of Governor Pawlenty, I want to send his
apologies for not being able to be here today, but he wants me
to assure you that doesn't lessen the importance that Minnesota
has placed on flood damage reduction.
As the DNR, as commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources, we administer floodplain management programs and the
State's flood hazard mitigation program. In addition, we
administer the regulatory programs that address impacts to
public waters and dam safety.
The Governor and our legislature this spring passed a
bonding bill that will provide $50 million additional resources
to flood hazard mitigation projects into the State and $17
million for disaster relief here to the Red River Valley.
Minnesota and North Dakota have been collectively dealing
with floods for many years. The 1997 flood disaster brought a
renewed focus to floodplain management and disaster
preparedness. Much has been done since then. Unfortunately,
there is still much to do.
It was very gratifying for me to be able to fly over
Breckenridge this spring during the flood to see that flood
project, to see how that worked for the Breckenridge community
and also being able to be on ground at East Grand Forks to see
how that Federal project protected that community at that peak
flood stage this spring.
First of all, I think it would be helpful if we looked back
specifically to Minnesota. Floods have been part of our history
here in the Red River Valley, as for North Dakota also. But the
floods that occurred in 1826, the significant floods in 1897,
1997, and 2009, each flood is unique and has a different impact
throughout the valley.
We recognize floods are here to stay, and we need to better
manage the risks of even greater events in the future. In the
mid 1990s, impoundment projects on the Red River Valley in
Minnesota were at a standstill. There was a U.S. Corps of Army
Engineers moratorium on issuing permits for new impoundments,
and that led to a joint State-Federal cumulative impact EIS.
The EIS was never completed due to the differences between
the parties who were involved in development of that. That led
to a formal mediation process that began in 1997 and ended in
1998. That mediation recognized the needs for 100-year flood
protection for cities and a 10-year protection for farmland.
The mediation established a joint planning process that has
proven to be very successful. Each watershed has a flood damage
reduction workgroup that reviews and develops projects. Since
then, numerous projects have been completed, both with State
and local funding.
Seven impoundment projects have been completed or are under
construction--Agassiz Valley, North Ottawa, PL566 upstream of
Warren, Brandt/Angus, Fusillit, Easton, Riverton Township,
Mattson-Slew.
The North Ottawa project, as the General spoke about
earlier, had 18,000 feet of acre storage of water that helped
to prevent or reduce the flow of water to the Breckenridge area
this spring.
These impoundments through that mediation process met the
concerns of what that mediation process brought out, the
concerns for flood control, the providing of the safety of our
public, and the environmental benefits that those impoundments
can bring.
The 1997 flood provided an impetus for significant State
funding to address flood mitigation projects. Local
governments, with the assistance of the State and Federal
partnership, have completed projects in Warren and East Brant.
There are three currently ongoing, as the General talked
about--Ada, Breckenridge, and Roseau.
Federal funding is still needed to complete these projects,
and you can guess that there will be additional communities
coming in for additional assistance, such as Oslo, Argyle,
Hendrum, East Georgetown, and Halstead. From a practical point,
a point of concern that we have is the length of time and the
cost of pursuing Federal projects. For example, Breckenridge
project over the years was delayed while the Corps waited for
Federal assistance to be able to complete that project.
While the Corps has been a valued partner and does a lot of
good work, that study process has forced us to move forward on
other projects that could have been Federal projects, such as
Crookston and Oakport Township. Waiting for that and the risk
associated with that has forced us, as a State, to move in with
those local units of government, and that is just something we
wanted to bring out for the record.
There are a couple of things that we would point out from
Minnesota's perspective that would help from the Federal
Government. One is provide a cost control mechanism for
projects. As the General talked about, it is a very complex
system of local, State, and Federal funding. Having the ability
to control those costs and the times associated and clear
understanding of who is responsible for cost overruns,
preferably the Army, would be helpful.
Utilizing, as the General also talked about, the best
science around the hydrology, the hydrology information that we
have collected from these previous floods to be able to
determine floodplain management and a focus on risk management.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We would also like to stress the point that Federal
assistance to help the States out, to be able to go into these
localized projects would be of great help at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Holsten
Mr. Chairman, Governor Pawlenty could not be here today but that
does not lessen the importance that Minnesota has placed on flood
damage reduction. I am Mark Holsten, Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
The DNR administers the floodplain management program and the
State's flood hazard mitigation program. In addition we administer a
regulatory program that addresses impacts to public waters and dam
safety. This legislative session Minnesota passed a bonding bill that
has $50 million for flood hazard mitigation projects and a $17 million
disaster relief bill that addresses recovery needs in the Red River
Valley.
Minnesota and North Dakota have been collectively dealing with
floods for many years. The 1997 flood disaster brought a renewed focus
to floodplain management and disaster preparedness. Much has been done
since then and unfortunately there is still much to do. It was
gratifying to visit East Grand Forks at the height of this years flood
and see how effective the Federal flood control project was working.
Additionally the diversion channel that was constructed as part of the
Whapeton/Breckenridge project effectively reduced the flood stage even
though there was more water in the system.
First it will be helpful to look back. Floods have been a part of
the history of the valley for many years with the flood of record
having occurred in 1826 and significant floods in 1897, 1997, and 2009.
Each flood is unique and they have different impacts throughout the
valley.
We recognize floods are here to stay and we need to be better at
managing the risk of even greater events in the future. We need to
build out of harms way instead of trying to control the inevitable next
flood.
In the mid 1990s impoundment projects in the Red River Valley in
Minnesota were at a standstill. There was a USCE moratorium on issuing
permits for new impoundments; and that led to a joint State/Federal
cumulative impacts EIS. The EIS was not finalized due to significant
differences between the parties. This led to a formal mediation process
that began in 1997 and concluded in 1998. The mediation recognized the
need for 100+ year protection for cities and a 10-year protection for
farmland.
The mediation established a joint planning (early coordination)
process that has proved to be quite successful. Each watershed has a
flood damage reduction work group that reviews and develops projects.
Numerous projects have gone through this process and have received both
State and local funding. Seven impoundment projects have been completed
or are under construction including; Agassiz Valley, North Ottawa,
PL566 upstream of Warren, Brant-Angus, Euclid-East, Riverton Township,
and Manston Slough. North Ottawa has 18,000 acre feet of storage and
helped reduce flows to Breckenridge this spring. These impoundments are
all off channel projects that have met the work groups concerns for
flood control, environmental enhancements, and safety. On channel dams
will continue to be difficult to permit.
The 1997 flood provided an impetus for significant State funding to
address flood mitigation projects. Local governments with the
assistance of State and Federal partners have completed community
projects in Warren and East Grand Forks. There are three ongoing
Federal projects in Ada, Breckenridge/Whapeton, and Roseau. Federal
funding is still needed to complete these. There will likely be other
requests from smaller communities for assistance like Oslo, Argyle,
Hendrum, Georgetown, and Halstad.
A concern is the length of time and the cost of pursuing a Federal
project. For example the Breckenridge project was delayed for years
because of a lack of Federal funds. This results in more risk exposure
to the city and an increase in costs due to inflation. After a project
commences with the USCE the inflation costs should be a Federal
responsibility if the project is delayed.
While the USCE has been a Federal partner on some projects, their
study process resulted in projects in Crookston and Oakport Township,
moving ahead without them because the risk was too great to wait for
the possibility of Federal assistance.
what can the federal government do to help minnesota reduce future risk
from flooding?
--Ensure consistent management across borders and Federal regions.
--Provide a mechanism for cost control on projects:
--Including when a contract is utilized that costs more than the
low bid, the Federal Government should pay the additional
costs without a local cost share.
--Inflation costs due to Federal delays should be borne by the
Federal Government.
--Utilize the best science to address flooding--when new hydrology is
available it should be used for floodplain management. Need to
focus on risk management not avoiding the need for flood
insurance.
--Have a means to provide funding directly to the States without the
need for a Federal project and the cost and time issues
associated with that.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these brief comments about
Minnesota's floodplain management and mitigation programs. We will
continue to work with North Dakota and Congress to address these issues
and to reduce the flood risk for our citizens.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Holsten, thank you very much.
Let me just observe that the delay on funding for the
Breckenridge project no longer exists, since I became chairman
of the subcommittee. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Holsten. Senator, I would wholeheartedly agree with
that.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
We are providing that funding, and we will continue to do
that.
Governor, let me just ask a couple of questions about this
issue. I understand you are ready to proceed on the Southside
project and wish to get credit against a future project, but it
is probably not possible to get credit against a future project
that doesn't yet exist.
I think if a future project is defined and available, at
that point, I think that you have raised a legitimate question.
If the State and local government would proceed on the
Southside project with its own funding, could it get credit as
part of the local share for the more comprehensive project that
is then defined?
But the ready-to-go piece, are we clear with Minnesota and
Moorhead at this point on the Southside project, or is there
more to do before we are ``ready to go?''
Governor Hoeven. Well, I think that is the purpose of these
discussions that we are having. The meeting we had in
Washington, DC, the meetings that Mayor Walaker and Mayor
Voxland are having, this meeting today is to find the answer to
that question.
Granted, it would have to be part of the plan. I mean, we
recognize and acknowledge that. But you are talking about a
timeline with the Corps where they are going to come out with a
plan in 2010 and then construction in 2012. So on behalf of the
State of North Dakota, we are offering this as a phase one to
that if it can be incorporated into the planning process, both
for the cost benefit and for the non-Federal--getting credit
for the non-Federal share of the cost.
And this is exactly the kind of dialogue that we are having
today and that we are having on an ongoing basis, local
officials to local officials, State to State, Federal
delegation to Federal delegation, to find out if that is
possible to move forward as part of the planning process.
Senator Dorgan. From my standpoint, I think that has merit,
to the extent that there is then a consensus developed on the
more comprehensive project against which this contribution
could count.
We would have to work on how to do that in Federal law. But
again, I think a first step has merit, presuming that the rest
of what we have discussed today actually bears fruit, and that
is the development of a consensus on a project. I appreciate
both the interest of local government and the State government
to begin as soon as the rest of those hurdles are cleared.
Governor Hoeven. Well, and Representative Peterson and
others have brought forward other projects in the region. We
just got done talking about Breckenridge, for example. You
know, we want to get as many of these things going as we can as
part of a basin-wide effort for water management, flood
protection.
Senator Dorgan. Yes, Wahpeton-Breckenridge is in a
different situation because that is an established project that
is--the proposition is correct that there was not adequate
funding for Breckenridge for a while. I am correcting that. But
that is an established project that has been developed.
There are other communities which have been discussed that
do not have, at this point, Corps projects. But when they do
move ahead with Corps projects, we should try to get them
funding.
Governor Hoeven. And that is accurate, and we held up on
our flood protection in Wahpeton, pending Breckenridge getting
that funding in place. In other words, we waited to finish our
project until they had the funding so they could finish theirs.
Senator Dorgan. Didn't have any choice.
Governor Hoeven. Right.
Senator Dorgan. And that makes the point clearer than
almost anything we could say today, that both sides of the
river have an impact on whatever is done on any side of the
river.
Governor Hoeven. Exactly. That is the point I am making. It
has got to be done together.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Conrad.
Senator Conrad. Thanks again, and thanks to this panel.
I would like to go to get on the record because I think it
is important to do because we keep getting questions about
1997, what occurred after 1997, why wasn't there a Federal
project? I just want to make clear, from my perspective, that
this is what occurred after 1997.
The city came to us with the Southside project. We got
$400,000 of Corps funding to do a reconnaissance study of that
project. Subsequently, the city and the State came to us and
said they were not interested in pursuing a Federal project.
And the reasons that we were given at the time that they did
not want to pursue a Federal project were the following.
No. 1, it was only a $29 million project at that point, and
we had already secured $11 million of FEMA money that could be
applied to it. That was mitigation money. So it was not--while
that was Federal money, it was not a Federal project because it
wasn't going to be Corps funded, funded by the Corps of
Engineers.
No. 2, they were concerned about a delay if it was a Corps
project because Corps had other major projects underway, and
they were concerned that there would be a delay that would go
on too long. Well, subsequently, you look back, Grand Forks got
a project completed, Wahpeton funded, on the brink of
completion.
Third and this is the thing I want to ask General Walsh
about, I was told at the time one reason they didn't want to
proceed with a Corps project--in other words, a Federal
project--was because of development land to the south of Fargo
that they wanted to get protection for. And they were concerned
if it was a Corps project that would not be included, or it
wouldn't meet the cost-benefit test.
So I am interested, General Walsh, in probing that
question. We still have that issue because Fargo is continuing
to grow. Fargo needs room to grow. Fargo's natural path, one of
the significant paths is south.
How would that potential development land be treated for
the purposes of the cost-benefit analysis? If the city of Fargo
wanted to include that, would that create a problem for the
cost-benefit analysis?
General Walsh. Sir, it would depend on the benefits.
Certainly, if the benefits are in an urban area and you are
protecting a large factory, you would get much higher benefits
than you would be on----
Senator Conrad. Development land.
General Walsh [continuing]. A developable land.
Senator Conrad. Yes, well, that is exactly the issue. And I
think, in the interest of everybody having kind of the full
information before them, this is going to be a key question for
all of us going forward. Because Fargo needs--they need growth
room. This city is growing. It is dynamic.
And obviously, when you calculate a benefit, if it is not
developed land that has got potential for development, it is
not yet developed, that has much less benefit in the formula
than land that has been developed. And so, if we are at 1.0--I
listened very carefully to Colonel Christensen here--we are at
1.0, we are on the tipping point of this being, meeting the
cost-benefit test.
And of course, we have got a lot of other things to
consider. We have got 100-year coverage. We have got 250-year
coverage. We have got 500-year coverage. And what kind of cost-
benefit test we would get on each of those alternatives.
So I just think it is very important that we get on the
record here these issues and that we all understand to the
extent development land is included, it is probably not going
to be treated very well for the purposes of cost-benefit test,
and we have got a close call here before it is optimized.
We understand there are other things that have to be
entered into calculation. But I think it is just important we
get that on the record.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just say that that issue exists all
across the country on flood control projects, and the key, from
the Corps' standpoint, and it makes perfect sense, of course,
is that when you develop a cost-benefit ratio, you are talking
about what the cost-benefit ratio is to protect that which
exists.
But rather than trying to provide protection for something
that doesn't yet exist, the Corps would much prefer that if
there is a risk to that area that they move elsewhere and build
where there is not such a risk. Therefore, in the calculation
of a cost-benefit ratio, future development scores very, very
low, if at all.
It is a perfectly logical thing for the Corps to do from
the outside, to say if you want to protect this area for future
development, it is not going to score very well because we
would prefer you build on higher ground somewhere else.
Senator Conrad. Can I add just one other point? And that is
that we also have the issue of floodplain. Because there is, as
I understand, an order out there to discourage development in
the floodplain, and of course, I mean, all of this is
floodplain. So that becomes another issue as we go forward.
And you know, I think we have got to think very carefully
about the future of this community because the development
opportunity, at least a significant part of it for Fargo, is to
move south. That is all floodplain, much of it not yet
developed, and we are going to have to calibrate very closely
here that cost-benefit test if we are going to meet it and be
able to qualify for that significant pot of Federal funding.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Brigadier General Walsh, you talked about some of the
projects in Minnesota, and Chairman Dorgan mentioned the
Breckenridge project, which has been long in getting completed.
And we were just there yesterday and made the final request for
that.
But could you just talk a little bit about some of the
other Army Corps projects--people get very antsy to get these
done--Roseau and Crookston, as well as what is happening with
Ada and Wild Rice?
General Walsh. Ma'am, a lot of them are quite detailed. I
can talk about them or submit them for the record.
Senator Klobuchar. Maybe if you just want to mention what
is happening in Crookston and Roseau?
General Walsh. In Crookston, as I look here, the work to
repair the berms is scheduled for this September. So we should
be starting to work on that this year.
On Roseau, we are preparing the plans and specifications
for the Roseau project. The project was authorized, as you
know, in 2007. The recommended plan is for a 150-foot east
diversion plan with the associated recreation features. I am
not quite sure when we are going to start.
Senator Klobuchar. But, no, that is helpful. It is just we
want to get those done as soon as possible, as you can imagine.
The other question I had, in your opinion, looking at
projects in metropolitan areas like these, larger towns, how
important is it across the country to have consensus at those
town levels before the Army Corps goes forward with a project?
General Walsh. It is absolutely essential that we have from
the local governments what they want for us to formulate.
Planning is a very messy business. You must get a lot of people
in a room with different thoughts and, from that, develop a
plan.
I know I heard from the previous panel there are a lot of
people talking about the Corps plan next year, and I would just
hope that that terminology changes to be the one plan, the
consensus plan, as opposed to the Corps plan.
Senator Klobuchar. Do you have examples in other parts of
the country where people were able to quickly reach a consensus
and other examples where they didn't?
General Walsh. Well, certainly, East Grand Forks and Grand
Forks is the example that I carry around in all my speeches.
People just need to meet on both sides of the river in
different States and agree how they want to proceed forward.
And there are hundreds and hundreds of examples.
For instance, in Napa in California, there were three
attempts to come up with a flood damage reduction plan there,
and the different counties couldn't agree on one. The attempts
just fell apart all three times. Until finally, the three
counties got together, signed an agreement, a legal binding
document that pushed that project forward and that project is
underway.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Mr. Holsten, Representative Peterson and I were just in
Oslo and Hendrum, some of these smaller communities. I mean,
they had a ring dike around the entire community, and for weeks
they were going in by water. Are those types of communities
going to be able to apply for some of this money?
I know Senator Langseth had worked very hard on getting
those funds. And as you said, the Governor was supportive of
them. What will that funding cover, that flood funding?
Mr. Holsten. Senator, the projections for the 2009 bonding
bill, we are looking at a number of projects dealing with--
Roseau has multiple phases or multiple aspects at Roseau.
Breckenridge and Ada are the ones of particular note. We are
also looking at additional resources. Those are ones where we
have State and Federal partnership.
These dollars are also looking at Crookston, North Ottawa,
and Agassiz Valley. Moorhead has a number of different
components to its dollars, both it is not known to detail the
scope at time for Georgetown, Oslo, Preston, and Hendrum. But
we have approximately $2 million that we have set aside for
that.
But again, until those projects are clearly defined----
Senator Klobuchar. I understand.
Mr. Holsten. The way we also manage our State resources, it
is based upon project ready and whether it is a State-Federal
partnership and local matches that are required.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. So we can urge them to at least
approach you about some of these projects.
Mr. Holsten. Absolutely. We are working with all of those
communities in the Red River Valley.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank
you, Governor Hoeven.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Representative Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Don't forget St. Vincent, okay? That is one other community
that has some needs up there that probably can't get dealt with
otherwise. So----
General Walsh. It is on the list, Congressman.
Mr. Peterson. And the other--I just wanted to say that I
talked about the Southside project before, but I don't think
that there is consensus yet on the Minnesota side, from what I
hear. There is no question.
And I think they have said today they are going to try to
work those out, and everybody seemed to be on the page they are
trying to work it out. But there are questions. And I don't
know exactly how people are going to get comfortable that this
doesn't affect the Minnesota side without the Corps coming in
and saying it doesn't. You are kind of going ahead of the Corps
having--I mean, you are not going to be able to say that, are
you, until you get the whole study done?
So I don't know how we get the assurance for the residents,
the community, and the leaders. I think that is kind of the
question. So we want to work with you, but I don't think we are
there yet, and hopefully, we can work through it.
General Walsh. That is why we are working on the dialogue,
to see if we can get there.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Congressman Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I took a slightly more positive conclusion away from our
Washington, DC, meeting than the comments of my colleague
Collin just reflected. I understand we have got issues to work
on. Nobody is going to blow anything by anybody. This is going
to be a consensus resolution. We all get that.
And in the early stages of these many, many meetings, as we
work this through and the studies progress, I think we are
going to have better luck if we talk about the process rather
than talk about the reservations. We all understand--the
reservations are just kind of a matter of record. We all get
that.
But if we talk about how concerned we are at every time we
get a chance, we may never get past these concerns. So let us
just let the process work its will and I think these studies
are going to be enormously helpful in terms of guiding us,
giving us the information we will have to make informed
judgments.
General Walsh, you have got a couple of things in here that
I want to note in your testimony. And as a proclaimed honorary
citizen of Fargo, we expect a little more of you than some of
this----
Senator Conrad. He hasn't filed his returns yet.
Mr. Pomeroy. Some of the qualified comments you make in
your testimony, you indicate, ``Federal projects will never
totally eliminate flood risk in the Red River basin. The
citizens need to take responsibility for reducing their own
flood risk.'' We absolutely get that.
You go on to say, ``Where Federal projects can be
justified, we will pursue them in concert with local
communities.'' You indicate in your testimony the low-hanging
fruit has already been done. But obviously, where circumstances
compel, we have to act. Circumstances compelled the response in
Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. That wasn't low-hanging
fruit.
And yet, to be in those communities, as you were, during
this flood event with people that woke up every day pinching
themselves. They couldn't believe it. That is the first time in
the history of this region, major flooding and the citizens of
East Grand Forks and Grand Forks secure.
It goes to show you what permanent flood protection can
achieve, and so, obviously, when driven by circumstance has to
be part of the response. Now how do we get there? Will we get
there by the cost-benefit analysis? And this is a part of your
testimony that maybe concerns me the most.
You indicate, ``Even though we see the potential for
catastrophic damages in rare and extreme events, such events
occur too infrequently to carry much weight in the economic
analysis. As a result of these factors, the projects do not
tend to be very well justified on an economic basis.''
What we are seeing is that the rare and extreme event is
becoming commonplace up here. The 100-year flood is the decade
flood, and we have constantly amazed ourselves at having
survived a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and just a few years
down the road we are fighting another one even more
threatening.
I remember one time during the flooding, I talked to
Colonel Christensen about this. And he indicated there was some
effort being made to have models reflect that 100-year events
aren't 100-year events anymore. Do you acknowledge that your
testimony may give way to some evolution of these models to
capture what we are actually experiencing? I mean, again, we
have come to know the 500-year event, the 100-year event. These
are really meaningless to us because we seem to be seeing them
many times in the course of a career.
And therefore, the modeling, which is part of your cost-
benefit ratio determination, needs to reflect we saved, by your
own figures, $2.5 billion in Moorhead-Fargo. We absolutely
believe that it is not going to be 100 years until we face that
kind of threat again. Will your models reflect that perhaps
this isn't rare and extreme? This is basically a cloud hanging
over the head of this community that needs to be addressed.
General Walsh. Yes, sir. And that is what the LIDAR study
that I talked about in my testimony should help us figure out
whether the 100-year was the 100-year.
And also, the second item is we are changing our vernacular
from--I have explained to people from California to New York
that 100-year is just a statistical number, and we are
reflecting back to 1 percent chance a year of flooding, so that
people don't think this is only going to happen once every 100
years.
You have a 1 percent chance every year of a flood if you
live in that type of a flood zone. So we are trying to change
the vernacular as well.
Mr. Pomeroy. I appreciate changing the vernacular. But I
also appreciate changing the percentages. If Devils Lake, for
example, was a jackpot, we would have won the house several
times over because we seem to keep hitting that 1 percent or
smaller.
And frankly, in Fargo-Moorhead, we feel like we have been
hitting that 1 percent regularly. One percent has got to be
bigger than 1 percent, or we wouldn't be hitting it that often.
Thank you, General. Your honorary status still is secure
with me.
General Walsh. Thank you, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Let me make just a brief final comment. I
know that there are a lot of people who, having been through
this flood season this spring and been very concerned about
whether they would prevail or lose their property or have to
evacuate and leave, they are very impatient. And the fact is
developing a comprehensive flood control plan is not the result
of waving a wand. It is a long, tough slog that requires a lot
of agreement and meetings and consensus being developed.
And we have had people ask us, the three of us and perhaps
you all, well, why did Grand Forks and East Grand Forks get a
project 12 years ago? Was it because they got the flood? They
say we should have had some bad news so that we could have
gotten the project.
You know, that is not the way it works. And I just wanted
to end this with an understanding that the way it works is when
local governments reach agreement.
Grand Forks and East Grand Forks reached an agreement very
quickly, but they had the added benefit of having a
comprehensive study already underway that had begun 2 years
prior. And so, after having been evacuated, they moved right
straight ahead, and their project is complete.
It is not as if Fargo and Moorhead each haven't improved
their flood control and their flood fighting capabilities. Each
has invested in various component projects and buyouts and so
on, but neither has agreed, and there has been no agreement on
a comprehensive plan for Fargo and Moorhead.
And the question is will that occur now? My guess is it is
likely, and this hearing, the meetings in Washington that the
Governor, that we all attended and other similar meetings will
make that judgment, will determine whether that is the case.
My hope is that it will be the case because I believe there
needs to be a comprehensive flood control plan developed,
planned, and finally built.
Let me thank all of you for your testimony.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks, and we
will also invite others who wish to submit testimony for the
permanent record to do so.
[The statements follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald H. Groenewold, Director, Energy and
Environmental Research Center
Thank you, Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on a flood mitigation
concept recently evaluated by the Energy and Environmental Research
Center (EERC).
As many of you well know, the Red River Basin is subject to
frequent damaging inundation from minor and major flood events, with a
truly devastating flood occurring, on average, every decade. Within the
last decade, billions of dollars have been spent on flood preparation
and recovery efforts within the Red River Basin, which underscores the
need for implementation of alternative flood mitigation approaches to
augment conventional flood control structures.
The EERC recently completed a federally funded multiyear effort
that evaluated the feasibility of employing a basinwide, distributed,
temporary storage strategy as a means of augmenting existing dikes and
controlling the devastating effects of springtime flooding in the Red
River Basin. With funding provided by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and input and
guidance from two advisory boards, the EERC conducted both hydrologic
modeling and field demonstrations of the concept. The flood mitigation
approach, referred to as the Waffle concept, could be accomplished by
temporarily storing springtime runoff in existing ``depressions''
within the basin, primarily ditches and low-relief fields bounded by
existing roads. The storage areas, roads, and existing drainage systems
would act as a distributed network of channels and control structures
to temporarily store water until downstream flood crests along the Red
River and its tributaries subside.
There are two kinds of dikes: those that have been breached, and
those that will be breached. Absolute security from flooding requires
augmentation of dike systems. The results of the EERC's effort
demonstrated that the Waffle concept is an excellent means of
augmenting dikes and mitigating damage from large springtime floods.
This approach is particularly effective as a means of intercepting,
controlling, and reducing overland runoff and, as such, could be
implemented as a stand-alone flood mitigation approach or as an augment
to conventional flood mitigation measures. The study estimated that, if
implemented, the Waffle would reduce peak flooding by as much as 6.2
feet along the Red River during a 1997-type event. The predicted net
flood mitigation benefits of the Waffle over the next 50 years for the
larger communities along the Red River were on the order of hundreds of
millions of dollars, with some implementation scenarios exceeding $800
million in net benefits. These benefits could be attained with
participation scenarios encompassing as little as 5 percent of the
basin's land area. The Waffle concept protects the entire basin, not
merely a few metropolitan areas with large dike systems. Unquantified
benefits of the Waffle approach also accrue to those areas with limited
or no flood protection measures, such as agricultural lands,
farmsteads, smaller communities, and rural infrastructure. For
instance, frequent and severe road washouts, which often decimate
county road maintenance and construction funds, are easily prevented
with Waffle-type storage. The approach also provides ancillary benefits
through reduced soil erosion and increased soil moisture and
groundwater recharge during dry years.
Unlike conventional flood control approaches, the Waffle concept
does not entail implementing drastic structural measures to intercept,
retain, or divert large volumes of water in order to achieve flood
mitigation benefits--instead minor structural modifications are made to
existing culverts to retain precipitation primarily where it falls on
the landscape. The aforementioned hydrologic and attendant financial
benefits were determined assuming no structural modifications would be
made to existing roads; however, the EERC estimates that by simply
elevating certain low-lying areas on roads surrounding potential Waffle
storage areas, the available storage volumes would double or, perhaps,
even triple with only modest increases in utilized storage area. This
could prevent some tributaries from even reaching flood stage,
resulting in as much as a 10-foot reduction in the level of the Red
River during a 1997-type flood event.
This approach is an excellent means of providing an additional
source of income to rural residents by allowing farmers to have two
crops: stored water prior to the planting season as well as their
regular crop. The economic evaluation of the Waffle concept, conducted
by North Dakota State University's Agricultural Extension Service,
concluded that the Waffle concept is economically viable even with
sign-up bonuses and landowner reimbursements equivalent to twice that
of the land's cash rent. Thus rather than spending billions of dollars
on flood preparation efforts or on damage to property and
infrastructure after the fact, much less money could be spent on
reimbursing landowners for temporary storage of water on their land--
without taking farmland out of production.
I urge the U.S. Senate to construct a program wherein landowners
can be compensated for temporarily storing water until downstream
threats from flooding have subsided. Given the history of severe and
frequent flooding in the region, a basinwide flood mitigation approach
like the Waffle is essential to long-term security from floods and the
economic vitality of the region. Our results have shown that
coordinated basinwide water management is viable, and the Waffle
concept is an excellent example of an option available for
implementation.
______
Prepared Statement of the North Dakota Farm Bureau
Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit comments on Red River Basin flood control.
North Dakota Farm Bureau is a member-organization, representing
more than 26,000 families across the State. Our purpose is to be the
advocate and catalyst for policies and programs that improve the
financial well-being and quality of life of our members. That is why we
are taking an active role in the issue of water management for the Red
River Basin. We have thousands of members--many of them landowners--who
will be impacted by decisions made regarding future Red River Basin
water issues.
And it is our members who saw a need, took charge and developed the
Farm Bureau Red River Basin Task Force, with the express purpose of
evaluating a water management plan for the Red River Basin. As
envisioned, the task force will gather information, identify
individuals and organizations with access to appropriate data and
correspond with other organizations. The information gathered will be
used to build an all-encompassing management plan that takes into
consideration the unique needs of landowners. The task force will be
comprised of a chairman and eight other Farm Bureau members from across
the basin.
Unfortunately, Red River flooding has become a polarizing issue.
This task force is interested in finding answers that will support
landowners as well as communities in the Red River Basin. Without an
active voice from landowners, committed to overcoming rural challenges
with an eye on growing healthy communities, we feel the issue will
continue to grow more contentious.
The Farm Bureau has a diverse membership. In Cass County alone, we
have more than 3,000 members who are urban dwellers. This diversity
provides us with a unique opportunity to speak to various audiences and
provide them with accurate and relevant information.
Agriculture continues to be the driving economic force in the Red
River Valley, as well as statewide. As such, agriculture must be part
of the water management decisionmaking process. We respectfully request
that our task force chairman have a seat at the table in any
discussions regarding the future of water management in the Red River
Basin.
Thank you for allowing us to submit comments on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Mathern, District 11, North Dakota
Legislative Assembly
Senator Dorgan, thank you for holding your hearing in Fargo
yesterday. We have much work to do!
I wanted to make a comment for the record about permanent land use
easements. My concern was also raised by General Walsh. He noted
``flood-wise requirements'' for flood plains as part of the solution to
prevent wide spread damage. I agree that State and local governments
must take more responsibility in this area.
We have dealt with such legislation in North Dakota with little
success but maybe a greater awareness of benefits of such land use
could lead to another outcome. There are many natural resource and
conservation organizations that could be invited to take part in the
flood prevention discussions. This would lead to a greater awareness of
the use of flood plain management to benefit not only people living in
flood danger but also to landowners.
My background includes having spent time in the Netherlands to
learn about dikes, floodplain requirements, and water policy. I work at
Prairie St. John's hospital situated next to the Army Corps dike built
in the 1960s in Fargo and serve on the appropriations committee
designating State match dollars for such projects.
Please consider broadening your discussions in this regard. I will
to do the same.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Dorgan. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., Wednesday, May 27, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-