U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

25–913 PDF 2017

SMALL WATERSHED INFRASTRUCTURE: 

CONTINUING THE MISSION, BUILDING UPON 

SUCCESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Serial No. 115–7 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

JAMES COMER, Kentucky 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

JODEY C. ARRINGTON, Texas 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

FILEMON VELA, Texas, Vice Ranking 

Minority Member 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania 

AL LAWSON, JR., Florida 

TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona 

JIMMY PANETTA, California 

DARREN SOTO, Florida 

LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware 

MATTHEW S. SCHERTZ, Staff Director 

ANNE SIMMONS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Ranking Minority 

Member 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4 

Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3 

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Submitted report .............................................................................................. 85 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 4 

WITNESSES

Bramblett, Jimmy, Deputy Chief, Programs, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ............................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Emmons, Jimmy, President, Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, 

Leedey, OK ........................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Burns, Hon. Kevin, Commissioner, Wise County, Texas, Decatur, TX ............... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Peterson, John W., Director of Government Relations, Land Improvement 

Contractors of America, Burke, VA .................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Finney, John, President, Red River Management Board; Co-Chair, Red River 

Retention Authority, Humboldt, MN .................................................................. 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

(1) 

SMALL WATERSHED INFRASTRUCTURE: 

CONTINUING THE MISSION, BUILDING UPON 

SUCCESS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Lucas, Thompson, LaMalfa, 

Allen, Bost, Abraham, Kelly, Conaway (ex officio), Fudge, Walz, 

Kuster, Nolan, O’Halleran, and Peterson (ex officio). 

Staff present: John Weber, Josh Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Rachel Millard, Stephanie Addison, Anne Simmons, Evan Jurkovich, 

Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, and Nicole Scott. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry entitled, Small Watershed Infrastructure: Continuing the Mission, Building Upon Success, will come to order. I 

recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing. 

Nearly 70 years ago, our predecessors exhibited exceptional foresight through their investment in watershed infrastructure 

projects. The lasting benefits of those investments through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, commonly 

known as P.L. 83–566, have allowed the NRCS to partner with 

local communities to provide technical and financial assistance to 

build structures necessary to protect communities, allowing them 

to thrive. 

Since 1948, nearly 12,000 small flood prevention dams have 

served local communities by providing both economic and conservation benefits. It is unsettling to imagine the destruction of property 

that would have taken place if these investments had not been 

made. 

While we celebrate the success of these programs, we cannot 

overlook that their strategic infrastructure is aging and requires 

upkeep. By the end of 2017, nearly 5,500 structures will have 

reached the end of their intended life-span. Maintaining and updatVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN
2 

ing these structures is often unaffordable for the communities that 

have benefited from the P.L. 83–566 program. 

In 2000, understanding the urgency of this issue, I introduced 

legislation to rehabilitate many of our watershed projects through 

the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act. At the time, my message 

was simple: If we take no action to rehabilitate, we will be left with 

the cost of removing these structures or faced with constant threats 

to life and property as these dams continue to age. And we would 

definitely watch our $8.5 billion investment in the successful partnership wash away. 

Those concerns are as important today as they were 17 years 

ago. I am confident that a modest investment now will pay off 

greatly over the next 70 years, across rural America. 

Both watershed construction and rehabilitation are necessary 

and important to maintaining and expanding our rural infrastructure, which is why I made those programs a priority, helping secure several hard-fought gains over the past several years. 

For example, in the 2014 Farm Bill, we created partnership opportunities to target and leverage Federal conservation funds 

through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Additionally, Congress agreed to $250 million in mandatory funding for 

small watershed rehabilitation to address the program backlog. 

And, finally, I am pleased that the 2017 appropriations language 

included funding for P.L. 83–566 also. While those represent important steps in working towards the current backlog of P.L. 83–566 

programs, more work must be done. This rural infrastructure may 

be largely out of sight, but it is of critical importance to those communities affected. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony today about the success 

of these programs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM OKLAHOMA

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing. 

Nearly 70 years ago, my predecessors exhibited exceptional foresight through 

their investment in watershed infrastructure projects. The lasting benefits of those 

investments through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program— 

also commonly known as P.L. 83–566—has allowed NRCS to partner with local communities to provide technical and financial assistance to build structures necessary 

to protect communities, allowing them to thrive. 

Since 1948, nearly 12,000 small flood prevention dams have served local communities by providing both economic and conservation benefits. It is unsettling to imagine the destruction of property that would have taken place if these investments had 

not been made. 

While we celebrate the success of these programs, we cannot overlook that this 

strategic infrastructure is aging and requires upkeep. By the end of 2017, nearly 

5,500 structures will have reached the end of their intended life-span. Maintaining 

and updating these structures is often unaffordable for the communities that have 

benefited from the P.L. 83–566 program. 

In 2000, understanding the urgency of this issue, I introduced legislation to rehabilitate many of our watershed projects through the Small Watershed Rehabilitation 

Act. At the time, my message was simple—if we take no action to rehabilitate, we 

will be left with the cost of removing these structures or faced with constant threats 

to life and property as these dams continue to age. And we would definitely watch 

our $8.5 billion investment in this successful partnership wash away. Those concerns are as important today as they were 17 years ago. 

I am confident that a modest investment now will pay off greatly over the next 

70 years across rural America. 

3 

Both watershed construction and rehabilitation are necessary and important to 

maintaining and expanding our rural infrastructure, which is why I made these programs a priority, helping secure several hard-fought gains over the past several 

years. For example, in the 2014 Farm Bill we created partnership opportunities to 

target and leverage Federal conservation funds through the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program (RCPP). Additionally, Congress agreed to $250 million in mandatory funding for small watershed rehabilitation to address the program backlog. And finally, I was pleased 

the FY 2017 appropriations language included funding for the P.L. 83–566 program. 

While these represent important steps to working through the current backlog of 

the P.L. 83–566 program, more work must be done. This rural infrastructure may 

be largely out of sight, but it is of critical importance to those communities impacted. 

I look forward to hearing testimony today about the success of these programs, 

and with that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks she would 

like to make. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, I yield to the Ranking Member 

for any opening remarks that she would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OHIO 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Chairman Lucas, and thank 

you for holding this hearing today. I know that watershed programs are near and dear to your heart, and I am pleased to hear 

more about them today. 

The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program and 

the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program are important tools 

in our conservation toolkit. These programs play an important role 

in preserving the viability of our farming communities and landscapes. 

One of the biggest benefits of the watershed programs is the 

flexibility and engagement provided at the local level through 

project sponsors. These projects are largely dictated by local interests to help address resource concerns and the health and productivity of individual watersheds. 

With over 1,300 active or completed watershed projects, this program has left a mark around the nation. As I learn more about this 

program, I am amazed at the scope of the projects that can be undertaken within this authority, from water quality, to soil erosion 

control, to fish and wildlife enhancement. 

This program seems even more important as we acknowledge the 

effects of climate change. Programs that help address flood mitigation and drought for our farmers only become more important with 

each passing day. These programs make our watersheds more resilient in the face of escalating extreme weather events. 

As you may know, Lake Erie, where I live, faces challenges from 

toxic algae blooms that wreak havoc on ecosystems and taint drinking water for many Ohioans. As we discuss watershed programs 

today, I hope to learn more about the advances to improve water 

quality that may be beneficial to Ohio. 

As we begin moving toward the next farm bill, I am looking forward to hearing more about watershed programs and the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program which can utilize P.L. 83–566 

authority. 

I would like to thank you all for being here again, and I thank 

the witnesses for sharing your time. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

4 

The gentlelady and I are pleased to note that both the full Committee Chairman and the full Committee Ranking Member are 

with us today. 

Would the Chairman have any comments to make, sir? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

Mr. CONAWAY. Just to thank you and the Ranking Member for 

holding this important hearing. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Does the Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, have any comments to 

make? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I do, Mr. Chairman. I thank you 

and the Ranking Member for holding today’s hearing. 

I know these watershed programs, especially the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, are important to you, as we have discussed this over the years, and you have been a longtime advocate 

and been part of including it in the farm bill. I am glad that we 

can have other Members learn more about these programs today. 

I am pleased that John Finney, from my district in Minnesota, 

is joining us at the witness table today. John is the chair of the 

Red River Management Board, and I have had the pleasure of 

working with him closely over the years. And thank you to him and 

to the rest of the witness panels for being with us today. 

Watershed programs are incredibly important, as the Chairman 

said, and part of our conservation toolbox. But, unfortunately, a lot 

of folks are not really aware of the programs themselves or the 

benefits that they provide, which is why today’s hearing is so useful. For example, a decade ago, the Small Watershed Program relied on earmarks for funding, which despite its broad support in 

Congress is what led to the program’s demise. 

As part of the 2014 Farm Bill, we allowed project sponsors to use 

P.L. 83–566 authorities under the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. This was done to provide both communities and 

projects the flexibility they need to be successful. 

I expect that at this hearing you will hear and learn more about 

the experience that local watershed districts have had, and in my 

district, have had utilizing the RCPP P.L. 83–566 funding and the 

way they have been trying to find practical solutions to expensive 

and controversial flood control challenges. 

I think that this is an important topic. A lot of folks will be interested in learning about this. And I want to thank you and the 

Ranking Member. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I was derelict in not recognizing 

Kevin Burns from Wise County, Texas, a panelist on the second 

panel, a longtime watershed advocate, and a near constituent of 

mine. Please excuse me for that gross oversight on my part. 

The CHAIRMAN. The important observation is duly noted. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

5 

And with that, the chair would request that other Members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses may 

begin their testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for 

questions. 

I would like to welcome our witness to the table, Mr. Jimmy 

Bramblett, Deputy Chief of Programs, NRCS, Washington, D.C. 

As you can tell, we are a fan of this, Mr. Bramblett, so you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY BRAMBLETT, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. All right. Very good. 

Thank you, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you all, actually, for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the Natural Resources Conservation Service and our watershed programs. 

We appreciate the ongoing support this Subcommittee has demonstrated for voluntary private lands conservation that help us improve the nation’s soil, water, and related natural resources. But 

before I talk specifically about the watershed programs, I would 

like to make a couple of comments about NRCS’ organizational 

structure and our mission. 

We have 2,800 field offices fanned out across the country, and 

that is important because these field offices provide technical and 

financial assistance to local landowners. And as you may know or 

may not know, more than 70 percent of land ownership in this 

country is held by private landowners. Those individuals make decisions every day that not only impact their operation, but also impacts their neighbors, impacts their watersheds, and impacts, in 

fact, the entire U.S. population. 

Our Conservation Technical Assistance Program basically is the 

backbone of offering that technical assistance to these private landowners. Through CTA, in combination with our delivery system, we 

invoke a conservation planning process that basically helps us analyze local landowners’ needs, interests, desires, on their property, 

at their location, and in combination with them develop a conservation plan of operations to help them meet their objectives as well 

as to help improve their natural resources and productivity for 

today and for future generations, while at the same time complying 

with all Federal, state, and local laws. 

The sound science that we bring to these private landowners on 

a daily basis not only helps improve the nation’s natural resources, 

it also informs policy development to make sure that taxpayer investments and conservation achieve the greatest return on investment as is possible. 

So with that backdrop, the focus here today on the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Act is actually a very enlightening 

conversation. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act 

not only helps us deliver that technical and financial assistance to 

private landowners where they live, on individual property, but it 

also gives us the authority to work with communities and through 

eligible sponsors. And in those communities, we can work with 

6 

them and do conservation planning for critical infrastructure activities that help also address broader natural resource issues that 

may be realized other than by what is happening on an individual 

farm or a ranch. 

The value of such an integrated approach has been demonstrated 

over the past 80 years, and particularly over the past 63 years with 

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. Since 1947, 

even with its predecessor, the Flood Control Act of 1944, we have 

invested in over 2,000 local projects with local sponsors and we 

have constructed almost 12,000 watershed dams to date. 

And through this process, we are realizing on an annual basis almost $2.3 billion a year in average annual benefits. Some examples 

of those benefits include protecting 610,000 homes, 61,000 bridges, 

46,000 businesses. 

If you think about farms, an average farm being 200 acres, the 

180,000 farms that are being protected would equate to roughly 36 

million acres. That is about the size of the State of Georgia, the 

largest state east of the Mississippi. And it is not just the size of 

the State of Georgia, it is some of the most productive cropland we 

all benefit from that is the size of the State of Georgia. 

But despite these successes, we are talking about manmade infrastructure here. Manmade infrastructure does require continued 

attention. And to date, NRCS has identified about 2,000 structures 

that are high-hazard structures needing attention for public safety 

concerns. We estimate that it would take approximately $7 billion 

to address some of those public safety concerns. 

And we also think investing in those upgrades today may help 

us benefit by reducing the overall investment should we continue 

to delay. Future investments for continued degradation of these 

type of structures may require more investments in the future. 

Congress has also recognized this by continuing to fund this program; recently, in this fiscal year, $150 million for a variety of 

projects. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, as you can see, the Public Law 83–566 program is a 

very beneficial program across this country. We have done a lot of 

work with landowners at larger scales of the Mississippi River 

Basin, the Chesapeake Bay. We have demonstrated tremendous 

success at that scale. 

But this 250,000 acre watershed scale gives us the ability to really put a lot more focus and energy and attention in an appropriate 

scale to realize the benefits to our natural resources and to our 

local communities. 

We are always working for ways to try to improve our business 

practices, to help get more conservation on the ground. Protecting 

our nation’s small watersheds is no small task, and when it comes 

to protecting lives through proper maintenance and upkeep, it is 

something USDA does not take lightly. 

So with that, I would like to thank all of you for your continued 

interest in the safety and functionality of our small watersheds, for 

voluntary conservation, and, of course, for the opportunity to be 

here today. And with that, I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bramblett follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIMMY BRAMBLETT, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS, NATURAL

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Introduction 

Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) watershed programs. I appreciate the ongoing 

support and leadership this Subcommittee has provided for voluntary, private lands 

conservation and the improvement of our soil, water, and other invaluable natural 

resources. Before I dig too deep into the NRCS watershed programs and activities, 

I want to briefly provide some introductory comments on our structure and mission 

that help to augment our critical watershed activities. 

NRCS provides technical and financial conservation assistance to individual, private landowners. More than 70 percent of land in the United States is held by private landowners. Decisions those landowners make every day not only have an impact on their land, but that of their neighbors, their watersheds, and ultimately the 

entire U.S. population. 

A series of programs (i.e., Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program) 

have been created and revised through the farm bill process to help NRCS facilitate 

its unique delivery system, carried out through local field offices that provide assistance to individual landowners across the nation. Through these programs, NRCS 

has made tremendous strides in helping farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other private landowners restore and enhance our nation’s natural resource base in a voluntary, incentive-based fashion. Perhaps most importantly, the decisions surrounding the implementation and prioritization of these programs and funding are 

made on the local level, through Local Working Groups and State Technical Committees to ensure local needs are addressed. 

Proven Success 

Our latest science-based modeling under the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) 

and assessment through the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) continues to show voluntary, incentive-based conservation is effective. In the Chesapeake Bay, voluntary adoption of conservation practices has led to reductions in erosion and sedimentation by over 60 percent, and reductions in nutrient losses, specifically of nitrogen, approached 40 percent. Through a landscape focus to our conservation investments, some 80 percent of the Bay’s critical cropland acreage has 

had conservation measures implemented. NRCS conservation investments in the 

Bay have resulted in a reduction of 15.1 million tons of sediment per year, enough 

to fill 150,000 train cars—which would stretch from Washington, D.C. to Albuquerque, New Mexico. Improvements in water quality monitoring data and aquatic 

habitat identified by external parties also confirms the positive impact of these investments. 

This science-to-solutions approach has been demonstrated to positively affect critical wildlife species as well. Through another targeted landscape initiative, our 

Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative, NRCS has helped private landowners install 

appropriate science-based conservation practices on over 6.7 million acres. Wildlife 

species targeted for listing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species List have recovered to the point where a pending listing decision is no longer being considered. As a result, thousands of landowners will not 

face increased regulatory pressures. 

The sound science that NRCS brings to the table not only improves our nation’s 

natural resources, it also directs policy development to ensure that taxpayers receive 

the greatest return on their conservation investments. The aforementioned accomplishments have been realized through our Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) 

Program, the backbone of our Agency’s conservation delivery machine. Many customers begin their relationship with NRCS through requests for technical assistance 

that later evolve into conservation plans that may include financial assistance 

through one of the farm bill programs. Our CTA Program, in combination with our 

organizational delivery system, affords us the opportunity to visit with landowners 

on their property, to analyze their land, learn their objectives, and then collaboratively formulate a plan to help them meet their objectives, comply with Federal, 

state, and local laws and ordinances, sustaining their operation for future generations. 

Landscape-scale approaches are foundational to progress toward meeting today’s 

challenges. In addition to the Chesapeake Bay, and Working Lands for Wildlife initiatives, NRCS is also collaborating with others in critical landscapes to address 

8 

water quality concerns in the western portion of Lake Erie, water quantity efficiencies in California’s Central Valley and the Colorado River Basin; fisheries improvements in the Pacific Northwest; acid mine drainage remediation needs in Appalachia and the Intermountain West; and flood protection for communities in the 

Central Plains and the Northeast. 

Importance of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 

In addition to demonstrated success in larger landscapes, NRCS’s Watershed and 

Flood Prevention Operations Program, authorized by the Flood Protection and Flood 

Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (Public Law 83–566, also known as P.L. 83– 

566) encourages focused conservation investments in smaller landscapes (i.e., watersheds) of 250,000 acres or less. P.L. 83–566 gained support from successes of a preceding program, the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78–534). The Flood Control Act placed a primary focus on watershed protection by preventing floodwater 

damage and stabilizing stream channels, tributaries, and banks to reduce erosion 

and sediment transport. P.L. 83–566 extended the authorities of the Flood Control 

Act of 1944 to capitalize on NRCS’s flexibility for delivering additional conservation 

investments beyond those focused solely on flood damages. Through P.L. 83–566, 

NRCS can offer conservation practices to individual landowners and work with local 

communities to create vital infrastructure protecting and restoring natural resources. The value of such an integrated approach has resulted in significant positive contributions to local economies and natural resources. 

Since 1947, NRCS, through our watershed programs, has worked with our watershed partners to: 

• Invest in over 2,000 projects within local communities for a cumulative total investment of $6.2 billion. 

• Construct 12,000 watershed project dams. 

• Realize $2.2 billion in average annual benefits. Such benefits come from: 

» 610,000—homes protected. 

» 46,000—businesses protected. 

» 180,000—farms protected. 

» 61,000—bridges protected. 

» 28,000—domestic water supplies protected. 

» 48,000,000—people benefited. 

(Source: NRCS Program Operations Information Tracking System database). 

Notwithstanding such success, both past and current, man-made infrastructure requires continued attention. NRCS has identified a current need of almost $7 billion to address public safety concerns for some 2,000 structures that have been identified as high hazard. A majority of NRCS watershed dams are over 50 years of age. 

Investing in needed upgrades today may help mitigate against more expensive future investments as these facilities continue to degrade. This investment could also 

result in removal of public safety concerns and help to avoid losing a portion of the 

aforementioned benefits. 

The cyclical nature of P.L. 83–566 related funding for NRCS watershed programs 

introduces a set of unique challenges for program management of projects requiring 

a multi-year commitment on behalf of eligible project sponsors, permitting agencies, 

and the private-sector assisting with such work. For example, planning, design, and 

permitting requires significant up-front non-Federal investments to conduct environmental assessments, secure necessary land-rights, complete requisite engineering 

designs, and obtain required permits. Non-Federal partners have to make critical 

risk management decisions related to financial commitments in the face of budget 

uncertainty for project completion. For the past 4 fiscal years, funding for this program has been: 

• FY 2014 = $260 million, 

• FY 2015 = $70 million, 

• FY 2016 = $12 million, [and] 

• FY 2017 = $150 million. 

Because public safety cannot be ignored, NRCS has worked with a number of organizations to develop tools and business practices intended to mitigate against 

risks from limited investments in capital improvements. One example of these efforts includes collaboration with state dam safety officials to develop Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for high hazard structures. The plans identify potential downstream hazards and which emergency personnel are to be notified in advance of unVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN
9 

desirable conditions at any given location. These plans are supplemented by annual 

emergency exercise drills for added preparedness. Finally, NRCS has recently released DamWatch, which quickly alerts essential personnel electronically through 

email, text message, or pager when dams are experiencing a high rainfall or earthquake event. These efforts allow for the agency’s limited resources to be directed to 

the right place at the right time. 

Utilizing Watershed Funding 

While these efforts to remain vigilant for public safety have proven successful to 

date, Congress has also recognized the need for continued conservation, and capital 

improvement, investments as well. Through the FY 2015 appropriations process, 

Congress directed NRCS to establish a long-term, multi-year plan to guide needed 

investments in watershed surveys and planning, and watershed operations as authorized under P.L. 83–566. While completing the plan, NRCS determined a 

prioritized need to invest in 220 projects. These projects would address a variety of 

issues, ranging from flood prevention and watershed protection, to agricultural 

water management, to municipal and industrial water supply. The total cost of 

these 220 projects is estimated to be $1.4 billion from FY 2017 through FY 2020. 

During the current fiscal year, Congress provided $150 million for necessary expenses in accordance with P.L. 83–566 and related laws relating to activities of the 

Department. This $150 million is to remain available until expended, provided that 

$50 million be allocated to projects and activities that can commence promptly. 

NRCS is preparing to first address a project backlog, remediation of existing 

structures, and then focus on new projects. Our agency has done a good job of preparing for and prioritizing project work in the face of cyclical funding realities. We 

use a risk index to identify a combination of physical, economic, and social factors 

ensuring that taxpayer investments address the highest risks first. Currently, the 

following are in progress: 70 watershed plans, 80 engineering design efforts, and 30 

ongoing construction projects. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, P.L. 83–566 

enables NRCS to bring all of the agency’s technical, scientific, and financial resources to bear at the appropriate geographic scale—the small watersheds of 

250,000 acres or less—where we can have the greatest impact on our nation’s resources. This program reflects our commitment to local leadership on critical conservation issues and has a reach that touches every Committee Member’s District. 

NRCS continually seeks to take responsible steps toward streamlining and modernizing our operations, while maximizing opportunities to get more conservation on 

the ground. Protection of our nation’s small watersheds is no small task and when 

it comes to protecting lives through proper maintenance and upkeep, it is something 

USDA does not take lightly. I would like to thank all of you for continuing to invest 

in the safety and functionality of our small watersheds, voluntary conservation, and 

of course for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Deputy Director. 

And the chair would like to remind Members that they will be 

recognized for questioning in the order of seniority for Members 

who were at the start of the hearing, and after that Members will 

be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members’ understanding, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Let’s visit for a moment, Deputy Director, just in the broad general sense about what we are talking about when we discuss P.L. 

83–566 projects. Many people, when they think of dams, think of 

huge things from Hoover Dam on down, these giant monstrosities 

designed and built and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, a classic example in the general public’s mind. 

But, P.L. 83–566 dams work under a different concept, correct? 

Instead of giant structures, you have networks of smaller earthen 

dams working in an interlocking fashion to provide in many instances tremendous amounts of flood protection, but not one big 

structure. Fair statement? 

10 

But that also means that from the agency’s perspective and the 

community’s perspective, there are a lot more of these facilities to 

maintain, correct? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is correct. In general, you are exactly correct on all fronts. These structures basically, when originally 

planned, were put in the upper reaches of the smaller watersheds 

to help catch some of that early rainfall. And you are right, they 

are also positioned and laid out in such a fashion to maximize flood 

prevention from an early perspective. 

The early rainfall, 100 year storms, basically individuals downstream are not going to see any change in the channel, because in 

addition to being a floodwater-retarding structure and being strategically placed, they are designed for 10 day drawdown. Most of 

them are designed for a 10 day drawdown, which is where the real 

beauty and the benefit from these structures come, because that is 

allowing not only the mitigation of flood downstream, it is also allowing it to dissipate at a rate that doesn’t cause any damages. 

The CHAIRMAN. And within 10 days be prepared for the next 

event. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever that may be. 

And let’s talk for a moment about the nature of the structures 

themselves, the original technology dating back to the 1940s. 

Science has improved that, the metals in the valve works, the design works, the letdowns, the way we build spillways. 

I have had folks tell me in the field that these 50 year designs 

that we originally went with, with the new technologies and the 

new materials, while not rated for it, we might potentially get a 

century’s worth of good out of the rehabilitation process. Is that a 

fair assessment? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is a fair assessment. In fact, many of the 

early structures that were built were built with a 50 year design 

life. And even into the 1970s, some of that technology was coming 

on board, and many of the later structures were built with a 100 

year design life. 

Today, anytime we do a rehabilitation activity, we really work toward trying to get that 100 year design life. And so not only the 

new technology for the materials that we use, but the way we do 

planning, the efficiencies that we can gain with some business 

practices associated with that, help make for a much more efficient 

delivery of conservation to individuals and to landowners. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would note to my colleagues, there are 

very few infrastructure projects the Federal Government is involved in or partnering with other entities that have potentially a 

century’s life expectancy. Think of bridges. Think of roads. Think 

of everything else. This is an exception in that area. 

Let’s talk for a moment about the nature of the Rehabilitation 

Program and how this is not just a Federal effort, but the local entities are required to put up resources to do things as a part of that 

rehabilitation cost coverage. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is exactly right. That is one of the beauties 

of basically all of the voluntary programs that NRCS brings to 

bear. It is not just Federal taxpayer, the taxpayers that are carrying the brunt of the investment. 

11 

NRCS, as I mentioned, works through a voluntary approach. We 

operate off of a request for assistance. And many times when we 

provide information to local sponsors as they articulate to us their 

issues and their concerns, when we talk about the flexibilities and 

the authorities of Public Law 83–566 and its related legislation, 

they are willing, sometimes in the face of budget uncertainties, to 

make some financial commitments on their own to try to progress 

in addressing those resource issues and concerns. 

In the end, though, the way the authorities are set up, generally 

NRCS provides 65 percent cost-share associated with a lot of these 

activities and private eligible sponsors provide the other 35 percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. That said, of the number of projects that could 

be completed, because we are only talking about a small percentage 

of the potential sites in North America that could be addressed in 

these projects, just off the top of your head, if the resources were 

available, how many more structures are there at some stage in the 

process, initial planning, initial consideration on the new construction side, off the top of your head, Director? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Right. We have roughly 30 projects in construction today and roughly 80 projects in the design phase and another 

70 with watershed plans ready to move into the design phase; and 

then many more in the assessment phase, looking at these structures, looking at the downstream hazards and trying to identify 

those to get those prepared for planning. And so it is a sequence 

of preplanning, planning, design, and construction. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is fair to say, if a Member represents a district 

that does not have any structures in place, whether in rehabilitation or new construction, there are a number of opportunities 

around the country where this technology, these techniques could 

be used to apply to enhance the flood safety issues. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is exactly right. There is still an opportunity with the authorities to address those issues and concerns. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Deputy Chief. 

With that, my time has expired. I turn to the Ranking Member 

and recognize here for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here as well. 

Mr. Bramblett, in your written testimony, you comment on how 

flexible P.L. 83–566 can be, particularly in delivering additional 

conservation investments beyond those focused solely on flood damage. Could you talk a bit about the scope and types of projects 

other than those that directly address flood damage? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Sure. Originally, in the 1954 legislation, a lot of 

the work we did, land treatment, when I say land treatment, I am 

talking about that one-on-one conservation technical assistance we 

offer to private landowners to help them plan and install conservation practices that will reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, 

increase wildlife habitat. 

Some of the early work we did was primarily to make sure that 

we reduced erosion that possibly could get into these watershed 

structures and reduce sedimentation, siltation, and try to extend 

the life of these structures. 

12 

As time moved on, the flexibility of this program grew in popularity. And so from a water quality perspective, we had more requests come to us, in addition to just the structural measures, we 

had many community requests come to us asking for us to address 

some of those soil erosion, water quality, wildlife habitat-type resources alone. And we have been able in later years to address 

those as resources have been available to us. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana are currently leading a national 

RCPP Program designed to reduce the chances of harmful algae 

blooms developing in Lake Erie’s western basin. How has or might 

P.L. 83–566 be used within such a project? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. P.L. 83–566 can do basically everything that the 

programs our agency has to offer. That is why I talk about the 

beauty of the integrated approach from P.L. 83–566. 

Many of you are aware of our Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, our easement programs, as well as our RCPP Conservation Stewardship Program. Through those programs, we typically 

work one on one with landowners to address their needs. Through 

the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, we are looking at 

a geographic area. Generally, it is a larger geographic area than 

the 250,000 acres outlined in Public Law 83–566. 

As we work with those landowners, we have seen demonstrated 

success even at those larger scales. In those larger scales, basically 

what we are finding is we can remove a variety of streams from 

EPA’s 303(d) listing of impaired streams. 

Some of the wildlife-focused activities we have done out West, we 

have brought species back from being on the brink of being listed 

on the threatened and endangered species list. And what that has 

allowed is those landowners to avert potential regulations associated with the Endangered Species Act that they might otherwise 

face. 

P.L. 83–566 gives us the ability to work with those private landowners but at the same time work with those leaders in local communities who also are seeing issues. Sometimes when we are working with private landowners we can make a lot of progress. But 

when community leaders get together and see issues beyond individual farms in a collective fashion, then through eligible sponsors 

we can connect with them, and then they can help lead and guide 

some of that local prioritization for conservation planning and conservation investments. 

And so with this delivery network that I have talked about, to 

me, that is one of the beauties of our delivery system, is that we 

have local people in local communities who understand the local 

soils, who understand the local climate, who understand the local 

agriculture, the agricultural economy, the limitations on individuals, and the limitations on communities. 

From that integrated approach of both the community and the 

individual landowner, P.L. 83–566 is a fantastic program to bring 

to bear. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bost, for 5 

minutes. 

13 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bramblett, in Illinois we don’t have a lot of the small watersheds, but we do face a lot of challenges with the watersheds as 

they relate to the Mississippi, Ohio, and Kaskaskia River in deep 

southern Illinois, which are huge watersheds. That being said, P.L. 

83–566, that is implemented by the NRCS, how does this program 

function differently than larger management systems that we do on 

these larger rivers? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Well, the authorities of P.L. 83–566 limit us basically to 250,000 acres. The measures that the Corps of Engineers 

might use on large watersheds, as the Chairman identified, some 

of those larger structures that come to bear in these larger watersheds, we can apply many of the same structural measures in 

smaller watersheds of 250,000 acres or less. 

If you are thinking in terms of a levee or a dike or something 

like that, we have installed those type of facilities in smaller communities to help them be protected from flooding on a smaller 

scale, exactly what you are describing on a larger scale in the Mississippi River. 

Mr. BOST. Okay. Also, on these watersheds a lot of things that 

we face, it is sediment buildup, okay, particularly with the 

Kaskaskia River, because of the agricultural area around and as a 

large a watershed as it is. But what I am trying to figure out is, 

if P.L. 83–566 is put in place up on the watershed further up, and 

maybe it is disqualified because it is all one plain, but would that 

stop that sediment as well? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. No. That is actually a very good illustration, 

and that goes back to the Chairman’s observation, about where we 

placed small watershed dams and watersheds. Generally, we did 

those upstream in those watersheds to help mitigate flooding originally. But with the land treatment protections upstream of those 

structures even more, we also prevented additional erosion and 

sedimentation from moving downstream. 

Even in a larger, broader watershed of beyond 250,000 acres, we 

can use P.L. 83–566 in such a means where we can break up that 

watershed to smaller 250,000 acre increments where these eligible 

sponsors have an interest, desire, and a willingness to sponsor such 

projects and help alleviate the larger, bigger issues that you might 

see on the Mississippi in the situation like what you are describing. 

Mr. BOST. Well, I appreciate that information. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has touched on a very good point. 

By building these interlocking systems, they benefit everyone from 

the raindrop that hits the ground to the Atlantic or the Pacific. 

With that, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, 

Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bramblett, did you read Mr. Finney’s testimony? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. No, sir, I sure did not. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Okay. Well, are you going to be here 

to listen to it? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Okay. We have been struggling with 

controlling the water in the Red River because it flows north and 

14 

it is flat and there are a lot of problems. And we appreciate the 

help that we have gotten from NRCS. And right now they are trying to spend $2.5 billion in Fargo to 

run the water around Fargo-Moorhead because we haven’t been 

able to control it before it gets there. And we have had problems 

with the Corps trying to recognize what we are doing and so forth. 

But one of the things that is in Mr. Finney’s testimony is one of 

the problems we are having out there is the way they have implemented these cost-benefit deals. They do it by individual watersheds. And what we are doing is we are trying to manage the 

whole basin. 

And the way this gets implemented, I guess, they don’t take into 

account the overall impact, the situation, and so it makes it difficult to make these projects qualify. We tried to get some changes 

when this RCPP thing was set up, but they weren’t completely implemented. 

And so whatever you could do to help us work through this, because the amount of money that has been wasted over the years 

in the Red River Valley with the erosion that has happened and 

everything else, all the money that we have spent on these floods, 

we could have controlled all of this with that money easily and 

been a much better situation for the environment. 

We are caught up in it, because the P.L. 83–566 authorities are 

limited to some certain amount of size and then they want to limit 

the benefits to that size or something, but that doesn’t necessarily 

always make sense. 

Whatever you could do to help us try to get through that and try 

to have a more effective response it will save the taxpayers money. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Yes, absolutely. While I am not familiar with 

that situation, we are more than happy to look at it and provide 

information back to this Committee and others about what limitations we have within the existing authorities we have and then 

what kind of potential remediations there might be associated with 

that. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. See, and I don’t know if there are 

some limitations on your authority that preclude you from doing 

what needs to be done. If there is, maybe there is a way we could 

legislatively do something to give you those authorities, because it 

just seems like a wasted opportunity and a waste of resources to 

not address it. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Right. Again, not being familiar with the specific case, it could be a situation with how the watersheds were set 

up also. There could be some reconfiguration of the 250,000 acres 

in order to be able to try to achieve the cost-benefit. Maybe that 

has already been attempted. But if there are other limitations, we 

are happy to look at that and provide feedback to let you know. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Yes, that is one of the issues. We 

did look at trying to make it larger. We had one of the most successful projects we have out there, the North Ottawa Project, which 

was a subject of a press opportunity last week. That got funded 

with all state money because it didn’t qualify. 

And just what it is doing is phenomenal, not only from surrounding area being eliminated from flooding, but the wildlife that 

has benefited and everything else that goes on with it. If we had 

15 

30, 40 of those North Ottawa Projects, they wouldn’t have to spend 

$2.5 billion trying to protect Fargo-Moorhead, whatever you could 

do. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Okay. We look forward to seeing that information and providing a response. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. All right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Bramblett, for being here. 

Question: Under the current statute, have you had any problems 

partnering with any watershed projects that could benefit a community? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. At this point, we, as I mentioned earlier, operate off of a request for assistance. And so being voluntary in nature, and having a backlog, that kind of demonstrates that we really haven’t had a problem trying to partner with communities. 

Now, there are times when we are working and making information associated with P.L. 83–566 aware to potential sponsors. And 

so because, as we mentioned earlier, this is a collaboration of Federal and non-Federal resources, sometimes local sponsors work for 

years with us to try to find the means to put up the non-Federal 

resources. 

But from the P.L. 83–566 side of the equation, it is a very wellreceived program, and I would have to say we have not had any 

challenges trying to find partners or working with partners out 

there across the landscape. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would you recommend any policy changes, or are 

there any policy changes that need to be implemented to help 

streamline the program? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Right. Well, as I mentioned, we are always looking for improvement on business practices associated with how we 

deliver the program in a streamlined fashion. We talked about new 

technology of materials for construction and the like. 

Nowadays, we can use LiDAR to do a lot of the improvements 

in conservation planning associated with these projects. 

From a policy perspective, that is the privilege of the Committee, 

however the authorities come to us and the resources that come 

along with those authorities. We will work to implement those as 

efficiently and as best we can. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair turns to the gentlelady from New Hampshire for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

it. 

Thank you for being with us. 

I wanted to talk about what is going on in New Hampshire, 

which is a reaction to the changes in our climate, which are rather 

dramatic. It is close to 100° in New Hampshire today, which, in my 

lifetime, is a rare occurrence, and we are in for another long, hot 

summer. 

16 

Last summer we had a drought for our farmers. But a few years 

back, just a couple years ago, I have one community in Keene, New 

Hampshire, that had the 100 year flood 2 out of 3 years. I am definitely concerned about flooding, and I am particularly concerned 

about the budget cuts that are coming down from the White House. 

I appreciate the Chairman bringing this topic to us. I support the 

programs, but I understand you have a tremendous backlog. And 

I want to have a discussion, if we could, about how we are going 

to address the backlog, how we are going to help our farmers and 

ranchers, and create these dams and preserve our communities 

from floods, given the cuts that we are facing in your budget and 

other budgets across the Agriculture Department. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Thank you so much. 

In 2015, Congress asked NRCS to develop a multiyear plan for 

addressing some of these aging infrastructures, and we basically 

delivered that report in December 2015. I mentioned in my verbal 

testimony that we have identified some 2,000 structures that need 

roughly $7 billion of investment for public safety concerns. 

As a big part of that report back to Congress there were roughly 

220 projects needing more or less $1.4 billion of investments. And 

so we have a prioritization mechanism in place. We call it a risk 

index. And what that does is it looks really at what is downstream 

of these structures as far as hazard concerns, what is the shape of 

that valley like downstream, how many people might be impacted, 

what other kind of utilities and what other kind of infrastructure 

might be impacted, and then what is the likelihood that the sponsors are going to be able to and willing to participate with us on 

a collaborative effort to try to address those issues. 

Through that process, this is how we have identified and lined 

projects up in such a fashion where we have those that are in construction right now, followed by those that are in the design phase, 

followed by those that are in the planning phase. 

In New Hampshire, we have one project basically for rehab that 

is current, but we also have in that preplanning phase that I mentioned earlier 18 watershed structures where we are looking at 

those assessments downstream to try to get them into that process 

so we can address those local concerns as quickly as we can. 

Ms. KUSTER. If we have bipartisan support on this Committee 

that we support these projects and want to go forward, how many 

communities are going to be put at risk when your funding is cut 

or you don’t have sufficient funding? 

I mean, that is 18 communities in my state that I would rather 

protect. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Right. 

Ms. KUSTER. We have had loss of life from floods. We have had 

tremendous damage to property. We have had whole towns washed 

away. 

If you talk to Vermont that had never had a hurricane until Hurricane Irene came through, millions of dollars, whole towns were 

cut off, no roads, no bridges getting to them. I mean, this is serious 

and we need to take care of this. And meanwhile the budget that 

comes forward is cut. I don’t understand how we are going to protect our constituents. 

17 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. From an NRCS perspective, what we are doing 

is trying to take advantage of this integrated approach. And, again, 

that is the beauty of P.L. 83–566. 

Outside of P.L. 83–566, and we talked about bringing on new 

technology, there is a lot of science just in natural resource management that has unfolded since we started this whole process of 

watershed protection and flood prevention. 

Some of you may have heard of our Soil Health campaign as an 

example. Soil Health is a mechanism whereby we are working with 

private landowners to increase the organic matter and the viability 

of their soils. 

Every one percent increase in organic matter holds an additional 

27,500 gallons of water. And when you start to multiply that out 

across all of the acreage above some of these watershed structures, 

that is a big deal. 

And not only does it hold more water for drought times and from 

a climate change perspective, but also when you have floods there 

is more aggregate stability, more structure, there is more infiltration. That also helps reduce flooding as well. 

Those are just a couple of examples of complementary activities 

that we have with that individual landowner delivery system that 

I keep talking about, along with the integrated capacity of the community delivery system under P.L. 83–566. 

When we can work with individuals, we can make a lot of 

progress and we can do a lot of good things. When we can work 

with communities and individuals, we can do a lot more. 

Ms. KUSTER. Well, thank you. 

My time is up. I thank the chair for having the hearing. And I 

hope you will use your clout with the Appropriations Committee to 

get the funding we need. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I promise my colleague every day in every way. 

The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now turns to the gentleman from Mississippi for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

again, for holding this important meeting. 

Thank you for being here. 

Seven, 8 years ago, I didn’t understand the value of watersheds 

and backwater levees, and I thought the Corps of Engineers just 

handled all the flooding things. It was in 2013 when we had the 

Mississippi River flood in Mississippi. And as a serving guardsman, 

I got to go down there and was shocked to find out that the majority of the things that we were depending on to save our citizens 

from a massive flooding and the levees and dams breaking, it was 

not the Corps of Engineers. It was these watershed projects and 

these backwater levees and all those things. I came to really value 

the importance of those things. 

That being said, that 2013 flood stressed those levees and those 

backwater levees and watersheds to the point that there is damage 

done. When you stress something to that degree, it is imperative 

that we continue to reinvest in this program because, as most people say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we 

don’t put the money on the front-end, we will pay for property damage on the back-end. 

18 

So that being said, Mr. Bramblett, you note in your testimony 

that NRCS strives to not only preserve resources, but also to make 

the taxpayers get the most out of their investment. How does the 

collaborative approach stretch dollars farther? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Through this program, as well as a lot of other 

programs, but as has been highlighted earlier here, we provide 

Federal resources but only to a certain extent. Non-Federal resources come into play. 

That way, not only do collectively we as Federal taxpayers have 

an investment in these resources, but those who are living in the 

local community and realize those benefits also have that investment. And the other thing about that, it is not just that investment. They have that ownership, that sense of achievement, that 

success, that appreciation, that social capital. 

Everything that goes with being part of a project like this is realized as we are successful in constructing, completing, averting flood 

damages, improving soil quality, improving water quality, reducing 

soil erosion, increasing productivity. All of those things just make 

all local communities feel much better. 

In addition to that, when we do these projects, not only are we 

trying to make sure that there is that balance of Federal and nonFederal resources that come to bear for the investment part of it, 

but we pursue, as Mr. Peterson was talking about, a pretty rigorous cost-benefit analysis to make sure that whatever Federal taxpayer benefits are being invested, there is a greater return on that 

investment than what is actually put forth. 

And then, finally, I would just point out that as we are talking 

about some of the risk associated with these aging infrastructures, 

we have mentioned this before, but it bears mentioning again, and 

that is making sure that as we have this backlog right now those 

structures and those situations that have the highest risk are the 

ones that we invest in first as well. 

Mr. KELLY. And I also think people don’t realize, we are all pretty parochial in Congress or seem to be, but it matters what Illinois 

does with their watersheds even though I am way down in Mississippi, and it matters what Arkansas does and what Mississippi 

does when it applies to New Orleans, because all those run to the 

same headwater which runs into those places. 

Mr. Bramblett, with the recent appropriation for P.L. 83–566, 

how quickly will local communities be able to move forward on construction for rehab of new projects? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. As I mentioned, we have 30 dams in construction right now, 80 in the design phase. With the allocation that we 

recently received, we expect to expend all of those funds within 12 

months. That just shows you, as the process continues to unfold, 

we continue to work with local sponsors. 

I mentioned that they often are making critical risk management 

decisions from a financial perspective, many times in the face of 

uncertain budget circumstances. But it is pretty amazing to watch 

them work with us, enjoy, understand, appreciate the process and 

the partnership between the Federal and the non-Federal resources, and continue to work to a point where they can be ready 

to go in helping put conservation practices on the ground, works of 

19 

improvement, other community construction activities as soon as 

resources become available. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bramblett, first of all, I appreciate the work that the agency 

does. It does an outstanding job given the funds it has. I just want 

to briefly go over a couple things. When you had indicated $7 billion to address public safety, that 

is just for the 2,000 structures that are at very high risk. Is that 

right? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is correct. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. And then you go onto, they include the 5,400 

structures by the end of 2017 that are at risk also but at a lower 

level. And then we have unmet needs in new construction on top 

of that. The $7 billion is not the real number. There is an extended 

number past that. What is that number? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Well, it is a dynamic system, and the dynamic 

system in that every year we have more dams come out of life, or 

rather meet their 50 year age requirement. Others are meeting 

their end of design life. And then we have others that still maybe 

need to be addressed because of high public safety concerns. 

For example, when we originally built these 12,000 watershed 

structures, only 970 of them were built as high hazard structures. 

But being from Arizona, you understand the urban sprawl of Phoenix, me being from Georgia, I understand the urban sprawl of Atlanta, and so what we had originally planned to have only 970 high 

hazard dams, now we have over 2,000, almost 2,100 high hazard 

dams. 

And any day of the week, in any structure of these 12,000 structures across the country, someone can put a mobile home below 

that structure and make it a high hazard dam. The exact figure is 

constantly changing. 

The best answer I can give you with respect to where we are 

today is the report that we gave in December 2015 regarding the 

2,000 for $7 billion we have 220 projects that are on a higher critical need for $1.4 billion. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. And I believe that partnerships are important 

in this process, but it appears that the current Administration and 

two previous Administrations have all decided that the burden 

should fall mostly on local government and local organizations and 

not the Federal Government, although we built many of these 

structures. 

And it helps us to improve, as the gentleman from Louisiana indicated, clearly the entire downstream process that is going on, 

whether it is Federal lands or private lands that are downstream 

from these structures. 

I have 12 Native American Tribes in my district. I have a tremendous amount of rural communities. I represent about 1⁄2 the 

State of Arizona as far as landmass. And so drought is a major concern to everyone across my district and across the state. 

20 

What changes would you like to see in the next farm bill or the 

budgeting process also to prioritize and enhance drought tolerance? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. As I mentioned before, some of the policy ramifications come from this Committee and others in Congress. If you 

have proposals that you would like us to react to, we are more than 

happy to look at those and give you some feedback on how that 

might mesh with the existing statute, how we deliver that particular program. 

Some of the other activities, I know it is a different animal out 

West when we are talking about soil health and range as it is in 

the East versus highly managed cropland versus landscape situations in the West. But the principles of P.L. 83–566 have been applicable across the board, whether it is agricultural water management, rural water supply. Some of those authorities that this program has to offer are there to come to fruition. 

The challenge that we constantly face is the fact that we do have 

a backlog and local communities and sometimes these more expensive projects without the Federal investment would have a hard 

time making those improvements in and of themselves. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. You would agree that the Federal investment 

prior to this equation cannot be just passed off to the side, that we 

don’t have any skin in the game, we need to have skin in the game 

to protect those Federal lands that are also at risk. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. It has been my experience in 20+ years of doing 

watershed planning at this scale that there are some communities 

that without that Federal investment would not be able to install 

those works of improvement themselves. 

And in many cases, where they have not been able to, there are 

other Federal resources below that, such as Federal highways, Federal interstates, and other Federal public lands as well that could 

sustain damages if those works of improvements are not realized. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. And then the only other difference that I can 

see, and this is just the scale of size in the West as far as the watersheds and even sub-watersheds in relationship to the current 

statute. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. And that is a really good point. I was in Colorado last week, and the first thing they asked me, are you amazed 

about how wide open it is? And yes, I am always amazed every 

time I go West about how wide open it is. 

Having said that, with the current authorities that we have, we 

do continue to try to construct projects or multifaceted projects, if 

you will, to address scaling issues, like those identified by Mr. 

Peterson or maybe some of the things that you are facing in Arizona. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now turns to the gentleman from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bramblett, welcome today. Again, I have a lot of interest in 

this DamWatch Program that you are speaking to us about here 

today. And I have it is not really related as a Federal project, but 

I have the Oroville Dam, right. I can see it from my front window, 

21 

so to speak. It is monitoring the levee infrastructure, all that, extremely important. 

Obviously, a project like that being a state project or Federal 

ones, I imagine they are using a lot of the technology that you are 

talking about here that can be used more on a district basis or a 

private basis where you have levees and dams on that smaller 

scale. 

Can you walk us through how the collected information is used 

when you receive that to allocate efforts, resources after some type 

of alert has come across, or even if there is not an alert situation, 

just how that would integrate into a regular maintenance schedule? 

How is that information applied? It is through an app, right? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Right. I need to give you a little bit of background information to fully answer your question. And we talked 

a lot about public safety, and we have talked about the need for 

capital and investments for upgrades and improvements. 

That said, public safety can’t be ignored. And so we continue to 

work with local sponsors, even though these structures are their responsibility, to try to help them address public safety issues and 

concerns. 

One of the ways we do that is each year for these high hazard 

structures we go out with them and do an operation and maintenance inspection. And as a result of that, if we identify issues and 

concerns, we alert them to those. 

In some cases, they have the resources to try to develop the designs for remediation, in other cases they depend on us to develop 

designs. In some cases, they have the resources to address it, in 

other cases they don’t. We are talking almost 12,000 structures 

here. 

In addition to having that annual operation and maintenance inspection, we also have on these high hazard structures developed 

what we call emergency action plans. And this is part of the assessment activity and some of this preplanning effort that I talked 

about a little bit earlier. 

What we do as a part of that process is we look downstream, 

and, God forbid, should there be a dam failure, we identify what 

that flood zone would be. We call it a breach zone. That emergency 

action plan is meant to identify what structures are in play, what 

utilities, what bridges, who the local emergency management personnel happen to be, what their phone numbers are, what their 

contacts are. 

This DamWatch system basically is a means of collecting all that 

information along with the original designs associated with these 

structures, so that if there ever is a situation that we can get to 

and address in a quick fashion, we know the original design information. That helps us more efficiently address any kind of catastrophic event that may be unfolding. 

So far, we have been fortunate, even though we have had even 

in 2016 these high hazard structures, and this highlights the public 

safety issue, we have had these emergency spillways or the portion 

of this dam that flows water before it overtops, 54 of those flowed 

in 2016. It is happening out there. 

What happens with DamWatch basically is we utilize USGS’ 

alert system for stream gauges, for seismic activity. And we have 

22 

all this information that I just described in this DamWatch system. 

What DamWatch then helps us do is it helps us send out electronic 

automated alerts to those critical personnel that are identified in 

this emergency action plan. 

Depending on the simulated rainfall, we will take that as the example, depending on the simulated rainfall, there is a certain stage 

of triggering that goes to these individuals to begin monitoring the 

situation. That is not just local emergency management officials. 

That is state emergency management officials as well as Federal 

emergency management officials. 

Mr. LAMALFA. That is all in real-time then as you—— 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is all real-time information. And it is for 

all of our watershed structures, 11,000 of our watershed structures, 

11,000 of our 12,000 watershed structures right now. 

Mr. LAMALFA. With the preplanning you talked about here, what 

if you had a very severe situation or lesser ones, use the preplan, 

and then as the data comes in what is actually happening there, 

you keep track of what water levels are looking like. Is this going 

to reach some kind of an alert stage where you have to start planning for something maybe a little worse? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Right. We are taking the next rainfall from 

Doppler Radar. We know based off of the soil information our agency has and land use what the runoff is going to be like. We can 

simulate what the water levels are going to be in these structures. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me ask, does it look different for an emergency event than it does for this ongoing maintenance? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Well, the difference between ongoing maintenance and this type of activity, the ongoing maintenance basically 

is trying to make sure that there is no large-scale vegetation that 

appears on the embankments, the earthen embankments, that 

there is regular mowing, that if there are routine maintenance activities associated with a trash rack that collects trash before it 

goes into the riser, needs to be replaced. Those are examples of regular type of ongoing maintenance. This type activity is more of a 

monitoring for public safety. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, sir. I better cut off there. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Would the gentleman yield for one moment before we dismiss our 

witness. 

The discussion we have had today about all the planning and the 

organization that is going into these structures, the maintenance 

and the emergency plans and everything, it is coordinated. The 

success of this program is really quite astounding, whether it 

would be a Federal Government program or anyone else’s. But part 

of the problem we have historically had is, in a body where all the 

grease goes to the squeaky wheel, this works so well it is hard to 

get people’s attention about maintaining and expanding the success. That is the difficult part. 

The gentleman yields back. I yield back. 

The chair and the Ranking Member wish to thank the Deputy 

Chief for a very thorough presentation today. And you are dismissed, sir. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Thank you so much. 

23 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, we would like to, when they are 

ready, welcome the next panel of witnesses to the table. 

While our witnesses are coming to the table, I would like to 

begin the introduction. Mr. Jimmy Emmons, President of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, from Leedey, Oklahoma. We also have Kevin Burns, Wise County Commissioner from 

Decatur, Texas. We have Mr. John Peterson, Director of the Government Relations, Land Improvement Contractors of America, 

from Burke, Virginia. And Mr. John Finney, President of the Red 

River Management Board from Humboldt, Minnesota. 

And with that, whenever you are ready, Mr. Emmons, you may 

begin. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY EMMONS, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, LEEDEY, OK 

Mr. EMMONS. Good morning. My name is Jimmy Emmons. I 

want to thank the Committee, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member 

Fudge, for this opportunity today. It is a great honor, and I do not 

take it lightly. 

I am a farmer and rancher from Dewey County in western Oklahoma. My wife Ginger and I farm 2,000 acres of farmland, run cattle on about 7,000 acres of rangeland. The Emmons home place has 

been in our family since 1926. 

I am speaking to you this morning because I serve on the District Conservation Board there in Dewey County, the local sponsor 

of two watershed program projects, 22 dams, multiple land treatment practices associated with these projects. I live and farm 

around these projects as we speak. 

There are more than 600 of these flood protection dams within 

a 75 mile radius of my farm. I am very passionate about stewardship and conservation as it relates to our soil and our water resources. 

It would be easy for me to testify about the rich history of the 

watershed programs in part because western Oklahoma and the 

watershed programs go way back. I can recount one story my 

grandfather told me about a small drainage ditch he started on our 

farm in 1934 that became a gash 40′ wide and 50′ deep in one 

night. 

That ditch turned out to be a warning sign that we still talk 

about 83 years later known as the deadly Hammond Flood, which 

killed 17. That piece of our history is just one of the reasons that 

Oklahomans now have 2,107 watershed program dams and countless conservation practices. The USDA Small Watershed Program 

changed the face of western Oklahoma, and when it did, it changed 

our future. 

When I became a grandfather, it sharpened my thinking about 

my future. My 41⁄2 year old grandson now is my motivation to 

speak up about the watershed programs. The program represents 

an estimated $15 billion investment in conservation infrastructure. 

As a local project sponsor, it is essential that we are good stewards of this investment. This requires a healthy Federal, state, 

local partnership that brings administrative, technical, and financial assistance to bear on matters relating to the watershed programs infrastructure. 

24 

If you travel on the county roads in my area and state highways, 

even Interstate 40, some portion of that road is protected by a watershed programs dam. 

The local economy is driven in part by grain, cattle, oil, and natural gas that relies daily on this protection. The roads and bridges 

that carry our children to and from school are protected by these 

dams. Our schools, along with other key elements in the community, are protected by these dams. The partnership between NRCS 

and local sponsors is critical in keeping this protection in place. 

Nationally, in 2018—we have talked about this, this morning— 

will be a milestone of the watershed programs where nearly 1⁄2 of 

the 11,840 dams will reach their engineered expected life that were 

constructed by SCS and NRCS. We are reaching a critical point 

this coming year. 

While nine out of ten Oklahomans live and work within 20 miles 

of the watershed program dams, many of these folks are unaware 

of the solace that they do. If we let this investment in protection 

slip away it won’t take long for them to be affected. The watershed 

programs needs Congressional attention if the future Americans 

want to enjoy the same safety, protection, benefits, and productivity the watershed programs presently delivers. 

In 2000, Representative Lucas led the development of the rehabilitation legislation that ensured our nation’s investment in the 

watershed programs had the opportunity to continue. The legislation gave the Congress the ability to reinvest in these structures. 

Congress has taken the right step in the direction with local sponsors. Statewide partners have responded with O&M dollars, rehabilitation matching funds, technical and other financial assistance. 

I cannot overemphasize the importance of the Congress, the 

USDA, and NRCS full partnership in the watershed programs. 

In closing, where I live, we have something we call farm sense. 

Farm sense is a good thing. Some folks have it; some folks don’t. 

Farm sense would tell me, if I invested $750,000 in a tractor, tillage and seeding equipment, and refused to grease that and safely 

operate that before it goes to the field, knowing that that equipment would have a significant capital investment that I put into 

it and still would not protect it. We have invested $15 billion into conservation infrastructure. It 

is no different. Farm sense tells me that Congress needs to reinvest 

in this important conservation program. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Emmons follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIMMY EMMONS, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION OF

CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, LEEDEY, OK 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Good morning, my name is Jimmy Emmons, I want to thank the Committee, 

Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Fudge for the opportunity to speak to you 

today. It is an honor and an opportunity I do not take lightly. 

I am a farmer and rancher from Dewey County in western Oklahoma where my 

wife Ginger and I farm 2,000 acres of cropland and run cattle on 7,000 acres of 

rangeland. The Emmons home place has been in our family since 1926. I’m speaking 

to you this morning because I serve on the Dewey County Conservation District 

board. 

We are local sponsors of two USDA watershed program projects (Barnitz Creek 

and Quartermaster Creek Watersheds) and the 22 project dams and the multiple 

25 

land treatment practices associated with these watershed projects. I live and farm 

in and around these projects. Six of the 22 flood control dams in Dewey County are 

considered high hazard dams with the threat of loss of life if the dams were to fail. 

The Dewey County Conservation District with the assistance of NRCS has currently 

rehabilitated four of these dams. (Barnitz Creek Watershed Dams No. 1, 5, 11 and 

14). 

There are more than 600 of these flood protection dams within a 75 mile radius 

of my farm. I am also deeply involved and committed to soil and water conservation 

issues at the local, state and national levels. I am passionate about stewardship and 

conservation as it relates to our soil and water resources. I also currently serve as 

President of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts. 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program 

Watershed Dam Rehabilitation is a critical component of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program. NRCS and its local sponsors are responsible for 

over 11,800 flood control structures nationwide. This flood control and conservation 

related infrastructure affects 2,000 watersheds and they represent nearly 1⁄3 of all 

dams ever built by the Federal Government. Every year this system saves an estimated $2 billion through flood damage prevention. Another way to view these benefits is by the number of people and communities who benefit directly from watershed projects. The existing projects are protecting over 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000 farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies. As a result, over 48 million people across the United States benefit from the 

watershed program every year. 

Many dams today are in a far different setting than when they were constructed. 

Population has increased; residential and commercial development has occurred upstream and downstream from the dams; land uses have changed; sediment pools 

have filled; and concrete and metal components have deteriorated. Many of these 

dams do not meet current state dam safety regulations that have been enacted and 

revised with more stringent requirements than when the dams were built. In addition, many of these structures built by NRCS had a design life of only 50 years. 

Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940’s to the early 1970’s, many 

of these dams are now past their design life and are in need of rehabilitation. 

Chances are as you travel in my area whether on county roads, State Highways 

or Interstate 40 some portion of the road you travel receives flood protection from 

an upstream USDA Small Watershed Program Flood Control dam. The local economy that is driven in part by grain, cattle, oil and natural gas relies daily on this 

protection. The roads and bridges that carry our children to and from school are protected. In several cases the school itself along with other key elements of community 

are protected. Just as it is across much of the nation, the water that these flood 

control lakes collect is also essential to our economy and quality of life in western 

Oklahoma. 

Many of our most productive farms and our healthiest soils are located in these 

protected watersheds. There are many less obvious benefits that come in the form 

of the prosperity and opportunity made possible by these projects. The partnership 

between USDA and local sponsors that brought us this protection is extremely important in keeping it in place. CY 2018 will be a milestone year for the watershed 

program when more than 50% of the 11,840 dams engineered and constructed by 

SCS/NRCS will have exceeded their original evaluated life. 

Nine out of ten Oklahomans live or work within 20 miles of a watershed program 

dam. These folks may be unaware of the watershed program, but if we let this investment in protection slip away it won’t take long for them to be affected. I’m sure 

a similar statement could be made for our neighboring states. The watershed program needs Congressional attention if current and future Americans are to enjoy 

the same safety, protection, benefits, and productivity the watershed program has 

given us. Rehabilitation is necessary to ensure dams continue to protect lives, businesses and homes. Failure to provide rehabilitation of these dams could result in 

dam breaches which would have catastrophic consequences. The flooding crisis and 

potential failure of the Oroville Dam in California this past February illustrates the 

need for infrastructure operation, maintenance and repair of dams. While Oroville 

Dam is not an NRCS dam its does show what could happen when dams are not 

properly repaired or maintained. 

In 2000, Mr. Lucas led the development of rehabilitation legislation that ensured 

the nation’s investment in the watershed program had the opportunity to continue 

into the future. Under the Dam Rehabilitation Program, dams are selected for rehabilitation through a competitive grant process and Federal are funds are limited to 

65% of a project’s cost. This commitment from state and local partners is necessary 

26 

to ensure that sponsors are fully committed to a project. This legislation gave us 

the pathway and the procedure for reinvestment. 

As the significantly invested local sponsors of watershed projects, state and local 

partners have felt that we have suffered from an inadequately funded Federal partner for much of the past decade. In my opinion, Congress has taken a step in the 

right direction by wisely investing through the 2014 Farm Bill and the 2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Local sponsors and state watershed program partners have 

responded with O&M dollars, rehabilitation matching funds, technical and financial 

assistance. I cannot over emphasize the importance of Congress and the USDA– 

NRCS as full partners in the watershed program. We hope these recent investments 

are a signal to USDA about the importance of these programs. 

It would be easy for me to spend my time before you this morning talking about 

the rich history of the watershed program in my part of the world because western 

Oklahoma and the watershed program go way back. I could recount the story my 

grandfather shared about a small drainage ditch across our farm that in 1934 became a gash in the landscape 40′ wide and 25′ deep literally overnight. Folks in the 

area still talk about the deadly Hammon Flood that killed 17 Oklahomans. That 

flood, that piece of our history, is just one of the reasons that Oklahoma is now covered with 2,107 watershed program dams and countless conservation practices. The 

USDA Small Watershed Program changed the face of western Oklahoma and when 

it did . . . it also changed our future. 

When I became a grandfather it sure sharpened my thinking about the future. 

My 41⁄2 year old grandson, a budding farmer and rancher in his own right, is my 

motivation to talk to you about the present and the future as it relates to the benefits the watershed program continues to bring to our nation. The program represents an estimated $15 billion investment in conservation infrastructure. As responsible citizens and local project sponsors, it is essential that we are good stewards of this previous investment. This requires a robust Federal, state and local 

partnership that brings administrative, technical and financial assistance to bear on 

matters relating to this infrastructure created by the watershed program. From routine operation, maintenance and repairs to full-fledged dam rehabilitation each of 

the partners has an important and specific role. 

In closing, where I live there’s something we call ‘‘Farm Sense’’. Farm sense is 

a good thing. Some folks have it, some don’t. A day or 2 on the farm quickly reveals 

who has a good measure of farm sense. A person with farm sense wouldn’t invest 

$750,000 in a new tractor and tillage equipment and then refuse to grease the 

equipment every time it goes to the field, fail to change belts, hoses, filters and 

fluids regularly or leave it parked outside where the tires can dry rot in the sun 

and the mice and packrats can devour the wiring. Knowing they depend on that 

equipment and have lots of capital tied up in it they would take care of it and do 

everything they could to hold its value and protect the investment. A $15 billion investment in conservation infrastructure is no different. Farm sense tells us its time 

for the partnership to reinvest. 

As the Subcommittee moves toward the next farm bill and the 2018 budget bill 

comes into focus I encourage you to support and provide adequate funding for new 

watershed projects and for the rehabilitation of aging watershed dams. Thank you. 

ATTACHMENT

Flood Control Dams in Dewey County 

Oklahoma has 2,107 flood control dams in 61 counties. These dams have been constructed through local watershed project sponsors with financial and technical assistance from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) authorized 

through Public Law 78–534 (Washita River Watershed) and Public Law 83–566 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program. Twenty-two of these dams are in 

Dewey County. 

The primary purpose of flood control dams is to reduce flooding. The secondary 

benefits of the dams address a myriad of public needs such as water supply, water 

quality, soil health, water management, wetland enhancement, fish and wildlife 

habitat, and recreation. Flood control dams improve public safety, contribute to a 

healthy economy and support a strong nation. 

Watershed projects also include the installation of natural resource conservation 

practices such as terraces, waterways, ponds, gully repair, and pasture and rangeland plantings. These conservation practices improve water quality and soil health 

and reduce sedimentation into the lakes formed by the dams. 

27 

Operation and Maintenance of Dams 

The annual operation and maintenance of dams is the responsibility of project 

sponsors (local units of governments such as conservation districts). 

Operation is the administrative and management activities necessary to ensure 

the dams function as designed and remain safe. Operation work includes annual 

dam inspections and inspection immediately following heavy rains. 

Maintenance work includes removing trees from dams and spillways, repairing 

erosion damage, repairing damage to the spillway and dams after heavy rainstorms, 

and keeping the principal spillway inlet towers cleared of debris. 

Operation and Maintenance Needs 

Operation and maintenance of dams can be expensive and labor intensive. $4 million is needed to operate and maintain all 2,107 flood control each year. Only 

through continued investment in operation and maintenance will future generations 

enjoy the promise of safety these dams offer. 

Annual Benefits 

The 2,107 flood control dams and conservation practices in watershed projects provide $91 million in average annual benefits. The table on the back of this page lists 

the annual benefits provided by watershed projects in Dewey County. 

Rehabilitation and Dam Safety 

As dams age some will need rehabilitation to remain safe and protect the people 

that live or work downstream. 

At the conclusion of 2016, 260 flood control dams in the state have been classified 

as high hazard. Of these 115 do not meet current state or federal safety criteria. 

Approximately $300 million is needed to upgrade the 115 dams. 

Six of the 22 dams in Dewey County are classified as high hazard and have the 

potential for loss of life if they should fail. 

The number of high hazard dams will continue to increase as long as residential 

and business development is allowed downstream of the dam in the breach flood 

area. 

NRCS can provide 65 percent of the rehabilitation costs and technical assistance 

to rehabilitate high hazard dams. Local project sponsors provide 35 percent of the 

cost and obtain any needed additional land rights. 

As of December 2016 thirty-five dams in the state have been rehabilitated and 

18 others are in various stages of planning, design or construction. 

Average Annual Watershed Benefits (Entire Watershed) 

Watershed Name Dams in 

Watershed 

Dams in 

Dewey 

County 

Monetary 

Benefits * 

Farms/ 

Ranches 

Benefited 

Bridges 

Benefited 

Wetlands 

Enhanced/ 

Created 

(acres) 

Reduced 

Sedimentation 

(tons of soil) 

Barnitz Creek 76 20 $716,340 225 25 1,734 520,184 

Quartermaster Creek 36 2 $666,760 134 19 743 154,228 

Total 112 22 $1,383,100 359 44 2,477 674,412 

* Monetary benefits include reduction in flood damages to crops, roads, bridges, fences, etc., and may include 

other benefits such as irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply and recreation. 

Conservation Districts are a primary sponsor of most watershed projects in Oklahoma. Listed below is the conservation district located in Dewey County that has 


11507002.eps
28 

*This Publication is issued by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission as authorized by 65 

O.S. 2001 § 3–110. 

Copies have not been printed but are available on the agency website. January 2017. 

watershed projects and other conservation agencies that can be contacted for more 

information about the watershed program. 

Dewey County Conservation District,* 

306 S. Broadway, 

Taloga, OK 

deweyccd@conservation.ok.gov 

The Oklahoma Conservation Commission is the lead state agency for upstream 

flood control programs and provides assistance and guidance to conservation districts. 

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the Federal agency 

that administers the watershed program and provides technical and financial assistance to the local project sponsors. 

Oklahoma Conservation Commission, 

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Suite 160, 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105–4210 

(405) 521–2384 

Web Page: http://www.ok.gov/conservation 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/conservation_ok 

Facebook: https://facebook.com/conservationok 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

100 USDA, Suite 206, 

Stillwater, OK. 74074–2655 

(405) 742–1204 

The CHAIRMAN. Words well spoken, Mr. Emmons. And the gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the Honorable Kevin Burns for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BURNS, COMMISSIONER, WISE 

COUNTY, TEXAS, DECATUR, TX 

Mr. BURNS. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Fudge, and other 

Members, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today. 

I am Kevin Burns from Decatur, Texas. I have been serving the 

citizens of Wise County for 15 years as County Commissioner. I 

have been a teacher, a volunteer fireman, small-business owner, 

small rancher. And I still raise some cattle and hay crops in a 

small way in Wise County. 

I am the past chair of the National Watershed Coalition. It supports watershed sponsors with training through conferences, materials, and then some boots-on-the-ground, hands-on training in operation and maintenance in cooperation with NRCS, and I have enjoyed that opportunity. 

My written testimony contains some national facts and figures 

about the benefits of the watershed programs, but what I really 

want to share with you today is, and why I traveled here, is just 

to talk about what happens on a daily basis in my experiences in 

Wise County and what it means to us. 

Wise County has 108 flood control structures in our little 9002

mile county. We have 85 dams that normally contain a pool of 

water, and I learned today that that the slow release was 10 days. 

I didn’t know that until today. I just knew that they worked very 

well. We have 23 grade stabilization structures that are just small 

levees with V-cuts to either slow or direct the flow of water. 

29 

I was lucky enough when I ran for Commissioner that the late 

former Wise County Judge Charles Wilhite came see me. This old 

family friend can to me with a little different attitude. He wanted 

to give me a little education, telling me that at the time we had 

80 dams in the county. He also told me about a regional multi-state 

drought that we had between 1950 and 1957. 

Our economy in Wise County was mostly agricultural based, so 

most of the folks had to move into the city to get a job. Our economy was terrible. What little commerce was going on in the county 

was killed overnight, or almost overnight, by rainfall in 1957. It 

rained 24′′. It washed out 85 bridges in the county. What little was 

going on came to a halt. That was catastrophic. 

The county had yet to invest anything locally in P.L. 83–566. The 

problem was solvable, and they had chose, because of budget, not 

to invest. It was in our best interest, obviously, at the time, that 

we needed to start investing. In 1961 we completed our first project 

and went on from there. We are well protected now. 

A major part of my responsibilities is roads. We have 990 miles 

in our county. I maintain 340 of them in my precinct. Forty-six of 

those flood control structures are in my precinct because of the 

highly erodible soils and the change of elevation. They are near 

and dear to my heart. 

The importance of those dams was exemplified in 2015, in the 

spring. Our yearly average rainfall fell in the month of May that 

year. We had nine washouts in my precinct. 

Now, realize the difference here: 85 bridges washed out in 1957, 

and now just nine small washouts. And those nine small washouts 

were in areas unprotected by P.L. 83–566 dams. They are incredibly effective. 

I have heard arguments that these P.L. 83–566 dollars, it needs 

to be a local investment and not a national investment. But we do 

put skin in the game. We put in conservation practices above these 

dams. We get the right-of-ways. And it is just not local benefits. 

Those benefits go downstream. There are areas outside of our county, other counties. And the lakes that are formed provide recreational opportunities, and two major lakes downstream from my 

county provide the water supplies for the City of Fort Worth and 

surrounding Tarrant County. 

The NRCS district really needs to plan and do some new 

projects. We have several deficiencies in my county. My story of 

this program benefiting my county is one of thousands across the 

nation. I appreciate you letting me share it with you. As you move 

forward in the 2018 Farm Bill, I encourage you to provide adequate 

funding for this program. It is much needed. 

And thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BURNS, COMMISSIONER, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS, 

DECATUR, TX 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I’m Kevin Burns from Decatur, Texas. First, thank you all for the opportunity to 

speak today. I’ve had the privilege of serving the citizens of Wise County almost 15 

years as County Commissioner. I’ve been a teacher, a volunteer fireman, small business owner, and small rancher prior to running for local office. 

30 

1 Report to Congress, USDA–NRCS, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program 

Multi-Year Plan. 

I serve the State of Texas on the Board of Directors for the conference of urban 

counties. Wise County is not considered an urban county having only about 70,000 

people in 9002 miles, but our growth rate and proximity to the Dallas/Ft. Worth 

Metroplex qualify us to join that group. I’m a past chair of the National Watershed 

Coalition, which supports Watershed sponsors with training through regional conferences, hands on training, and resource materials. 

I still raise cattle and hay crops in rural Wise County near Decatur, TX. I’ve 

never thought of myself as a conservationist, but I was taught to maintain land that 

I owned or leased and to be conscious that the practices we do on the land affects 

its productivity in the future. That stewardship of our nation’s resources is one of 

the things I wish to talk to you about today. 

While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be better known 

for providing a financial safety net for farmers and ranchers, USDA also provides 

an actual safety net for our rural communities. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program (watershed program) is a vital, but often overlooked, infrastructure 

program within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) portfolio. 

The watershed program authorizes NRCS to work with local units of government, 

like conservation districts and city/county governments, to install watershed protection and improvement projects that provide communities with flood prevention, agriculture water management, municipal water supply management, fish and wildlife 

habitat enhancement, as well as public recreation development. 

These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while conserving natural resources and contributing to local economies. The watershed program focuses on both 

the design and construction of structural water control measures and on land treatment measures. Watershed planning provides a basis for partnering at state and 

local levels to identify and co-invest in projects reflecting the highest priority needs. 

Flood prevention and reliable water quality created by the watershed program are 

essential to developing and maintaining strong rural communities. Watershed 

projects not only protect lives, property and reduce flood damages, but also create 

economic growth and strengthen local economies. Flood protection is essential to 

prevent the unnecessary loss of infrastructure and capital to developing economies 

in rural America. 

Investing in the watershed program expands opportunities for natural resource 

conservation and provides important national economic and environmental dividends for all Americans. There are countless successful examples that verify the 

value the watershed program brings to rural areas in the form of water supply, 

recreation, flood protection, and sustainable economic development. Watershed program projects are an economic engine that make participating communities more 

productive places to live, work and play. 

More than 11,800 flood control structures have been constructed in 2,000 watersheds nationwide and they represent nearly 1⁄3 of all dams ever built by the Federal 

Government. Every project requires that a portion of the watershed must be covered 

with installed best management conservation practices. Every year this system of 

flood control lakes and conservation measures protects over 47 million Americans 

and saves an estimated $2 billion through flood damage reduction. 

In a recent report to Congress,1 NRCS estimates that this program, by avoiding and reducing flood damages, annually provides more than $352 million in benefits 

to agriculture and more than $462 million in benefits to non-agricultural uses, such 

as roads, bridges, and homes. Other benefits, such as erosion control, water conservation, water quality improvement and irrigation efficiency, exceed $441 million 

on agricultural lands and over $957 million in recreation, fish and wildlife, rural 

water supply, and municipal and industrial water supply, annually. 

The watershed program also plays an important role in protecting resources vital 

to the agricultural economy as well. Agricultural water management includes measures that help to manage water supply for agriculture and rural communities. Measures include drainage water management, ground water recharge, irrigation management, water conservation, water quality improvement, and rural water supply. 

The watershed program is federally-assisted, but locally planned and implemented. Local project sponsors use local resources to maintain constructed project 

measures which contribute directly to a stronger national economy and a responsible national environmental future. 

Wise County has 108 flood control structures built under authority of Public Law 

83–566 established by the United States Congress in the mid 1950s. We have 85 

dams that normally contain a small pool of water and a larger pool with a slow controlled release during flood conditions. We have 23 grade stabilization structures 

31 

that merely retard or direct water flow. These dams protect our county roadways 

which is a major portion of my responsibility as County Commissioner. My county 

has 990 miles of road. I am responsible for the maintenance of 340 miles in Precinct 

2. Forty-six of those 108 dams are in my Precinct. 

I was lucky enough to be visited by the late former Wise County Judge Charles 

Wilhite during my first campaign. Judge Wilhite stressed the importance of the P.L. 

83–566 program and gave me a short local history lesson that I would like to share 

with you. There was a regional/multi state drought from 1950 to 1957 that brought 

considerable hardship to our region. Our local economy was mostly agriculture 

based. It was tough to make a living, so a large portion of population moved from 

the area to find jobs in the city. That drought was relieved almost overnight in a 

flood in 1957. 

What little commerce going on in the county was further hindered due to that 24′′ 

rainfall over a weekend in 1957 that washed out 85 bridges in my county alone. 

Even though the population had dwindled and revenues were low, the commissioner’s court, the Wise County Water Control and Improvement District, and the 

Wise County Soil and Water Conservation District started investing local match 

funds and participating in the P.L. 83–566 programs, with our first project completed in 1961. 

I am fortunate to live in an area in which there continues to be cooperation between those and other entities to maintain our flood control dams. The importance 

of those dams was exemplified in the flooding in my county in the spring of 2015. 

We received more than our yearly average of rainfall in the month of May that year. 

We had a 14′′ rainfall in one afternoon in a small area of Precinct 2 and only had 

nine road washouts that made roads impassable. Please note the difference here; 

we had nine spots that were impassable opposed to the 85 bridges that were washed 

out prior to the dams being built. All of those washouts were in watersheds not yet 

protected by P.L. 83–566 projects. All roads were passable in Precinct 2 in the 

drainage protected by P.L. 83–566 dams. 

I’ve heard arguments against funding the P.L. 83–566 program that claim that 

it should be funded with local dollars. Local project sponsors do provide their share 

of the cost of projects in providing easements, right of ways, the cost of installing 

conservation practices, cost of working with landowners and more. But the benefits 

of these projects are not all local. These projects provide benefits many miles downstream often in other counties or even other states. These projects provide not just 

local benefits, but state and national benefits. Many of the lakes formed by flood 

control dams provide recreational areas, water supplies and hunting and fishing opportunities that are utilized by people from many miles away. 

Another benefit of the watershed program is the enhancement of water quality 

in urban areas. We recently developed a relationship with the Tarrant Regional 

Water District to help us maintain our dams and install conservation practices. The 

water district serves an area downstream from the watershed projects in Wise 

County that includes the majority of the population in Congressional District 12 and 

a small portion in District 13. Watershed projects and conservation practices in 

Wise County help protect both water quantity and quality in two major lakes downstream managed by the water district. These lakes provide water supplies for the 

City of Fort Worth and other areas of Tarrant County. 

My passion for the program was cultivated when first taking office by former 

Commissioner’s Court members and conservation district members that lived 

through the floods in 1957, but now it is reinforced by the demonstrated benefits 

during my term in office. There are opportunities to provide benefits to many more 

citizens in this country through the P.L. 83–566 program. 

The recently passed FY 2017 Appropriations bill acknowledges the need for this 

important infrastructure program and appropriated $150 million for Watershed Operations. We thank Congress for that support. As Members of Congress, you are key 

partners in extending the benefits of the watershed program. Your support for the 

program is vital. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr. Peterson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. PETERSON, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, LAND IMPROVEMENT 

CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, BURKE, VA 

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am representing the Land Improvement Contractors of America 

32 

today, and it is our contractors that have installed many of these 

watershed dams throughout our nation. 

In my previous years with the Soil Conservation Service I also 

have planned projects, designed dams, constructed dams as a 

project engineer, and directed the watershed programs nationally. 

While serving as the Executive Director of the National Watershed 

Coalition, I worked with Chairman Lucas as he championed the 

Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act. 

I am now also Chairman of the Northern Virginia Soil and Water 

Conservation District, and we have a watershed project in our district that has had four dams rehabilitated. 

There are about 2,100 watershed projects in the United States 

covering 145 million acres of projects in every state; 11,845 dams 

have been constructed. The total average annual benefits is nearly 

$2.3 billion. 

Conservation practices are a vital part of each of these projects. 

They also increase the service life of the dams by reducing sediment accumulation. There are watershed dams in 218 Congressional districts. The watershed as the logical unit for dealing with 

natural resource problems has long been recognized. 

In 1993, record flooding occurred across the Midwest, 50 deaths 

occurred, and damages approached $15 billion. I also managed the 

emergency watershed programs then and was involved in that disaster recovery. 

After the floods passed, Iowa looked at their watershed projects 

and the flood damage reports in four of their counties, and the result was graphic. The areas that had watershed projects installed 

requested far less disaster assistance. 

A program evaluation also demonstrated that the actual benefits 

of costs in these projects was about 2.2:1, and the studies showed 

that more benefits were obtained than had been originally claimed. 

The actual adjusted economic benefits exceeded those planned by 

34 percent. And those numbers are low, because many of these 

projects have exceeded their evaluation life, and the benefits continue long after. 

When properly maintained, these dams will provide benefits indefinitely. In addition, there is more infrastructure protected today 

than there was when the projects were planned. 

Chairman Lucas’ Oklahoma has been a leader in these watershed projects. Oklahoma has 129 projects in 64 counties. These 

projects contain 2,107 dams and provide Oklahomans with $91.5 

million in average annual benefits. Ranking Member Fudge’s Ohio 

has 27 watershed projects covering over 1.8 million acres; 77 dams 

have been built. 

Ohio also has many nonstructural watershed projects underway. 

Twenty-four of Ohio’s 77 dams are high hazard, and some need to 

be rehabilitated to meet current dam safety standards. 

I am also very proud of my own watershed Pohick project just 

across the Potomac River. This was the first project planned in the 

United States where the watershed was being converted totally 

from rural to urban use. All the dams are planned as high-hazard 

structures, and the project also developed new guidelines for erosion and sediment control in urban areas. 

33 

The Pohick project is operated and maintained by Fairfax County, and I would invite your Subcommittee Members to come over 

across the river sometime and visit us. We will give you a tour, and 

you would be very impressed. 

So why should the Federal Government be involved with these 

watershed programs? Well, they are not federally owned but federally assisted and locally owned. They are locally initiated. They 

consider environmental values. They address the needs of low-income and minority communities. And best of all, they are programs 

people actually like. 

Local conservation districts, the NRCS, and state conservation 

agencies combine to make a very effective delivery system for providing technical assistance to people. But that delivery system is 

currently strained. 

A healthy Federal partner is critical to this partnership. A delivery system is in place, but by continually downsizing NRCS, we are 

eroding the most effective and efficient means of working with people that has ever been developed anywhere. 

This system and its ability to produce food and fiber is the envy 

of the entire world. In my view, these watershed infrastructure 

programs are national priorities. 

Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue recently wrote, ‘‘According to a new Chamber poll, fully 70 percent of Americans want 

the Federal Government to invest in infrastructure.’’ Our watershed project infrastructure should be a major part of that investment. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. PETERSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, LAND IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, BURKE, VA 

Opening 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John W. Peterson from 

Burke, VA, and I am honored to be asked to testify on the value and benefits of 

USDA’s Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83–566), the Flood 

Control Act (P.L. 78–534), and the Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 

(P.L. 106–472), representing The Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA). 

LICA Member contractors have constructed many of our nation’s flood control dams, 

and helped install most of the other conservation practices on our farms and 

ranches. I present this testimony in support of what I consider the most beneficial 

water resource conservation infrastructure programs ever developed in the United 

States. LICA understands full well the need to use our tax dollars wisely. That 

makes the work of your Subcommittee very important. It also makes it imperative 

that the Federal programs we have are those that provide real benefit to society, 

and are not programs that would be nice to have if funds were unlimited. LICA believes these watershed programs are examples of those rare programs that address 

our nation’s vital natural resources infrastructure, do so in a way that provide benefits in excess of costs, and are programs that serve as models for the way all Federal 

programs should work. 

I will admit my bias in support of these beneficial programs. In my 40 years with 

the old Soil Conservation Service (SCS), called the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) since 1994, I have planned watershed projects in MN, OH, IN, and 

AZ; designed watershed dams in MN, OH and IN, constructed watershed dams as 

a project engineer in MN, and directed the watershed program nationally for USDA 

in Washington, D.C. After retiring from USDA, and while serving as the Executive 

Director of the National Watershed Coalition (NWC), I worked with Oklahoma Representatives Lucas and Watkins, and the late Senator Paul Coverdell (GA) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR), as Chairman Lucas championed the passage the Small 

34 

1 An Iowa NRCS PDF showing Crawford, Union, Mills and Decatur Counties entitled ‘‘Watershed Projects and 1993 Flood Damage Reports in Four Iowa Counties.’’ 

Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106–472. A good friend, Dr. 

Dan Sebert from Pawnee, OK, replaced me as the NWC Executive Director. He and 

the NWC are extremely good watershed program references. Coming full-cycle, I am 

also now the Chairman of the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District (NVSWCD). Our District is the cosponsor of the Pohick Watershed Project, 

along with Fairfax County. Four of our Pohick Watershed’s six flood-control structures have been rehabilitated in recent years, some with assistance from the Rehabilitation Act. I believe my watershed program experience has given me a perspective that I hope is helpful to you. 

General Watershed Program Observations 

There are about 2,100 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) assisted 

watershed projects in the Unites States, covering 145 million acres, with projects 

in every state. In 1,271 of these projects, 11,845 flood control (or floodwater retarding) dams have been constructed by local watershed sponsors with NRCS assistance. 

In most cases, a local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) is one of the 

local sponsors. In some cases, they are assisted by other cosponsors such as watershed districts or county government. The total average annual monetary benefits 

these projects produce is $2,257,132,064 (2016 dollars). Nearly $2.3 billion. That is 

very significant! I have attached a listing of the number of watershed dams located 

in each state as attachment. In addition, over 282,000 acres of wetlands and over 

9 million acres of upland wildlife habitat has been created or enhanced by watershed projects. Conservation practices that improve water quality are a vital part of 

all watershed projects. Practices such as terraces, waterways, grass buffers, strip 

cropping, and grade stabilization structures, are used to prevent soil erosion and reduce sediment. They also increase the service life of dams and their ability to provide flood damage reduction. There are watershed project dams in 218 Congressional Districts across the nation. 

Note that I called these flood control dams floodwater retarding dams. I am sure 

you all remember the Great Midwest Flood of 1993. From May through September 

of 1993 record flooding occurred across ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO, WI and IL. 

50 deaths occurred and damages approached $15 billion. I also managed USDA 

Emergency Watershed Program then, and was involved in USDA’s disaster assistance to the damaged areas. This flood wasn’t caused by a single rainfall event, but 

was more of a prolonged hydro-meteorological event. The rains came to the area, 

stalled, and stayed for months. One thing that flood event taught me is that we humans don’t really control floods. We are very good at reducing flood damages, but 

we do not control floods. Since then I have referred to these watershed dams as 

floodwater retarding dams, not flood control dams. 

However, the Great Midwest Flood also proved the many benefits of the watershed programs. After the floods passed, my SCS colleagues in IA, one of the states 

effected, looked at watershed projects and 1993 flood damage reports in four Iowa 

Counties, Crawford, Union, Mills, and Decatur. The result was graphic. The areas 

that had watershed projects installed requested far less disaster assistance.1 Roger 

Schnoor, who at that time was the President of the Iowa Watersheds organization 

(now disbanded) said ‘‘These watershed projects stood out like protected islands in 

a sea of damage.’’ 

This is just one of several such evaluations that occur across the country that 

have demonstrated that watershed projects significantly reduce the need for emergency recovery following major floods. 

The USDA assisted watershed programs address multiple natural resource objectives. Objectives that can be addressed are flood damage reduction, watershed protection (erosion and sediment control), water quality improvement, rural water supply, water conservation, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, recreation, irrigation, water management, groundwater recharge, etc. That is flexibility emphasizing 

multiple uses. 

People should understand these Federal watershed program funds are only a part 

of the total that is committed to this vital national, conservation purpose. The local 

project sponsors in these ‘‘federally assisted’’ endeavors also have a tremendous investment. As a minimum, they provide all the land, easements, and rights-of-way 

costs for construction of the structures, as well as being responsible for 100% of the 

operation and maintenance costs for the life of the structure. Congress increasingly 

talks of wanting to fund those investments in our nation’s infrastructure that will 

sustain us in the future. Water quality and watershed infrastructure management 

provide that sustainability, and should be a national priority. 

35 

2 Evaluation of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, USDA–SCS. 

My colleagues on this panel have done an excellent job of telling you about the 

programs themselves. I will concentrate on what these projects have done, their 

benefits. And those benefits are very substantial. 

I will start by mentioning the results of a complete watershed program evaluation. The most current program evaluation I know of,2 demonstrated the actual ratio 

of benefits to costs in all those projects completed as planned, was approximately 

2.2:1. And the study showed that more benefits were obtained from these projects 

than had been originally claimed. The actual adjusted economic benefits exceeded 

the planned benefits by 34%. The watershed projects produce $2,257,000,000 in average annual benefits (2016 

dollars). And those benefits are low because many of these projects have exceeded 

their ‘‘evaluation life’’ (the economic evaluation that calculates when the anticipated 

benefits will have repaid the projects costs), and when properly maintained, repaired, and failing components replaced, those dams will continue providing benefits 

indefinitely. In addition, there is considerably more infrastructure being protected 

by these projects today than when they were first planned. Properly maintained, our 

U.S. watershed program dams will serve us far longer than their economic evaluated life. And I would add that 2018 is a milestone year in the watershed program 

as more than 50% of the projects dams will have exceeded their evaluated life, and 

their benefits continue. 

The evaluation also mentioned that the projects provided a wide range of social 

benefits, benefits that enhance the quality of people’s lives. Many of these benefits 

are not included in the calculation of monetary effects because of the difficulty in 

assigning monetary values. Yet these social benefits cannot be ignored simply because quantification is difficult. Some of these societal benefits are reducing; 

• the threat of loss of life. 

• health hazards such as insect breeding pools, sewage overflows, and chronic wet 

conditions that are particularly hazardous to the elderly and children. 

• significant risk and inconvenience associated with damage to roads and bridges. 

• disruption of necessary services such as police and fire protection, and the need 

for emergency equipment. 

• pollution of drinking water. 

• pollution of water used for water-based recreation. 

• interruptions of utilities. 

What if other Federal programs did so well? Recent budget proposals to limit 

funding for the Watershed Operations and Watershed Rehabilitation Programs 

which help communities improve water quality, control erosion, reduce flood damages, protect people’s lives, and improve local infrastructure, is short sighted. There 

are also proposals to reduce funding for USDA’s Conservation Technical Assistance 

(CTA) Program, the very lifeblood of voluntary conservation in the United States. 

These proposals would eliminate programs that produce net benefits to society as 

a whole. That simply makes no sense. We in the conservation community should 

talk more about how these programs benefit all of society, not just in rural areas, 

but everywhere. 

One other national benefit worth mentioning is the availability of DamWatch, a 

new web-based application that provides real-time monitoring of rainfall, snowmelt, 

stream flow, and seismic events that could pose potential threats to dam safety. It 

will help watershed project sponsors monitor and manage dams so they can better 

prevent and protect against hazardous, costly and potentially catastrophic events. 

Project Benefits in Select States 

Chairman Lucas’s Oklahoma has long been a leader in these watershed programs. 

OK has 129 watershed projects in 64 counties. These projects contain 2107 flood 

damage reduction dams, and provide Oklahoman’s with $91.5 million in average annual monetary benefits. And Chairman Lucas’s 3rd Congressional District has 1,040 

dams providing his district with $34.5 million in average annual monetary benefits. 

Oklahoma is probably the best state in having good watershed historical information. Much of that is due to the work of a good friend Larry Caldwell, P.E. (NRCS 

Retired), who has personally kept that information current. He also keeps national 

information current. 

Ranking Member Fudge’s Ohio has also been active. There are 27 watershed 

projects in Ohio covering over 1.8 million acres. To date 77 floodwater retarding 

dams have been built. Ohio also has a number of non-structural watershed projects 

36 

3Pohick Creek Watershed Work Plan, Fairfax County, VA. January 1967. 

underway. Twenty-four of Ohio’s 77 dams are classified as high hazard, and some 

do need to be rehabilitated to meet current dam safety standards. The current cost 

estimate for upgrading all Ohio’s watershed dams to meet Ohio Dam Law is $6.3 

million. 

In my own Commonwealth of Virginia, NRCS has assisted sponsors with construction of 109 single-purpose flood control dams and 41 multiple-purpose structures. 

Dams have been installed in 35 watersheds within 27 counties across Virginia at 

an original cost of over $151 million. Over time, the recreational benefits have exceeded the levels expected during the planning process for many of the sites that 

were built. Of the 41 multiple-purpose structures, 25 were built with recreation as 

a purpose. Of those, 11 have public access recreational facilities. Ten of the 15 structures built with water supply as the only secondary purpose also have public recreation. The big surprise was that 16 of the single-purpose flood control dams also 

have public recreation facilities. Together, 25% of the dams have public access recreation. Fishing, boating, camping, hiking, and bird watching are just a few of the recreational benefits. From the social perspective, the dams have become part of the 

fabric of the community. In several places, there are lake-based events that bring 

tourism into the county. All of these activities bring value to the community that 

is measured not only in the associated economics, but in giving an appreciation of 

nature, improving physical and mental health, and contributing to the quality of 

life. NRCS can be proud of the way that the people have made these reservoirs a 

part of their daily lives. In addition to flood damage reduction, 15 of these structures provide community water supply and 37 are used for public recreation. Between 2005 and 2016, NRCS also helped communities rehabilitate ten of those dams 

at a total project cost of over $22.3 million. 

A Very Unique Project, Pohick Watershed, Fairfax County, VA 

I am very proud of a watershed project just across the Potomac River in Fairfax, 

County, VA, in the shadow of our nation’s Capital. It is the Pohick Creek Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Project 3 whose sponsors are my own Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District which I serve as Chairman, and Fairfax 

County, represented by the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES), and County Park Authority (PA). The original Work Plan calculated 

the b/c ratio to be 1.4:1. The watershed area is 22,690 acres, and the watershed population in 1965 was only 4,767 people. In 2000 the population had grown to 117,000, 

and it is about 150,000 today, in a County of nearly 1.2 million, about 14% of the 

state’s population and the most populous County in the Commonwealth. This project 

planning began in 1965 when erosion from construction activity had virtually destroyed several residential lakes. In addition, a multimillion-dollar sewer referendum opened up the Pohick Watershed for residential and commercial development. These circumstances caused public concern that rapid conversion of land from 

rural to urban uses was creating irreversible damage to streams and the pleasant 

hillsides. Planning this watershed project resulted in many national firsts. This was 

the first watershed project planned in a watershed being converted totally from 

rural to urban land use. All the dams were planned as high-hazard structures providing protection from the 100 year frequency storms downstream. And the project 

brought forth new guidelines for erosion and sediment control (land treatment) in 

urban situations. An erosion and sediment control ordinance was passed by the 

county in 1967. That ordinance later became the model for the erosion and sediment 

control law passed by the Commonwealth of VA in 1967. In addition to dealing with 

urban erosion and sediment control, the project contains six floodwater retarding 

dams. The County says the major benefits of the project are that it: 

• Protects stream valleys from flooding. 

• Promotes orderly residential and commercial development. 

• Expands water based recreation opportunities for residents. 

• Protects wildlife habitat in flood plain areas. 

• Influenced the establishment of effective erosion and sediment control ordinances. 

• Serves as a laboratory for new ideas on urban soil & water conservation measures. 

• Reduces siltation in rivers and lakes. 

• Challenges developers and landowners to protect the natural environment. 

• Preserves open space in stream valleys. 

37 

• Eliminates unsightly and expensive concrete rip-rapped channels. 

• Provides aesthetic backdrop for adjacent residential and commercial development. 

• Provides improved storm water quality to the Potomac River and & the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Pohick Watershed Project is operated and maintained by the County DPWES 

and PA, and they are one of the best project sponsors in the entire United States. 

Our dams are impeccably maintained, and constantly used for recreation by residents. I would invite any of you Subcommittee Members to travel to Fairfax County 

for about 4 hours some day, and I will arrange for County Officials to join me in 

giving you a first-hand tour. You would be impressed. 

I will share a comment from the Chairman of our Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Sharon Bulova, on how she feels about the Pohick Watershed and the relationship the County has with NRCS. 

The county would not have been able to upgrade the emergency spillways 

on four of our P.L. 83–566 high hazard dams to comply with current dam 

safety standards in a timely fashion without the great partnership and funding through the NRCS. The county’s P.L. 83–566 high hazard dams can now 

safely convey the storm water flows from a probable maximum precipitation 

event which correlates to roughly 27′′ of rain in a 6 hour period as a result 

of these recent upgrades. The lakes are considered a valued asset by our 

community, providing flood protection for many downstream residential and 

commercial properties, roadways and a railroad while also serving as a recreational amenity. These lakes also have been designed and serve to improve 

downstream water quality in the Pohick Creek watershed, the Potomac River 

and Chesapeake Bay by capturing sediment and other pollutants. NRCS has 

made a positive impact on the health, safety and welfare of Fairfax County. 

Chairman SHARON BULOVA, Fairfax County, VA. 

Why Watershed Programs? 

The watershed as the logical unit for dealing with natural resource problems has 

long been recognized. P.L. 83–566 offers a complete watershed management approach, and should have a prominent place in our current Federal policy emphasizing watersheds and total resource management based planning. Proper watershed management improves water quality. Why should the Federal Government be 

involved with these watershed infrastructure programs? 

• They are infrastructure programs whose objectives are the sustaining of our nation’s precious natural resources for generations to come. 

• They are not federally owned, but federally assisted, locally sponsored and 

owned, operated and maintained. They do not represent the continued growth 

of the Federal Government. 

• They are locally initiated and driven. Decisions are made by people affected, 

and respect private property rights. 

• They share costs between the Federal Government and local people. Local sponsors pay between 30–40% of the total costs of P.L. 83–566 projects. 

• They produce net benefits to society. 

• They consider and enhance environmental values. Projects are subject to the 

discipline of being planned following the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and the Federal ‘‘Principles and Guidelines’’ for land and water 

projects. That is public scrutiny! 

• They are flexible infrastructure programs that can adapt to changing needs and 

priorities. 

• They are programs that encourage all citizens to participate. 

• They can address the needs of low-income and minority communities. 

• They are targeted to address the most serious resource problems. 

• And best of all—they are programs the people like! 

Every state in the United States has benefited from the Small Watershed Program. 

Some Suggestions 

There are some suggestions I would like to make concerning this very important 

watershed legislation. I believe the objectives of this legislation should be expanded 

to include more non-structural water quality practices, and allow the law to provide 

38 

cost-sharing in developing rural water supplies (without water there is no rural development). 

With the ‘‘downsizing’’ the NRCS has experienced, I would be remiss if I did not 

express concern as to their ability to provide adequate technical support to these 

watershed programs. NRCS technical staff has been significantly reduced, and 

budget constraints have not allowed that expertise to be replaced. Traditional fields 

of engineering and economics are but two examples where expertise has been lost. 

I see many states where NRCS capability to support their responsibilities is seriously diminished. This is a disturbing trend that should be halted. This downsizing 

has a very serious effect on state and local conservation programs. Local Watershed 

and Conservation Districts and the NRCS combine to make a very effective delivery 

system for providing the technical assistance to local people—farmers, ranchers and 

rural communities—in applying needed conservation practices and watershed programs. But that delivery system is currently strained! A healthy Federal partner 

is critical to this partnership success. Many states and local units of government 

also have complementary programs that provide financial assistance to land owners 

and operators for installing measures that reduce erosion, improve water quality, 

and maintain environmental quality. The NRCS provides conservation districts, 

through agreement with the USDA Secretary of Agriculture, ‘‘on the land’’ technical 

assistance for applying these measures. The delivery system currently is in place, 

and by downsizing NRCS, we are eroding the most effective and efficient coordinated means of working with local people to solve environmental problems that has 

ever been developed. Our system and its ability to produce food and fiber is the envy 

of the entire world. In my view, these watershed infrastructure programs are most 

important in terms of our national priorities. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue recently wrote, 

‘‘After years of talking about failing infrastructure, we finally have the bipartisan 

buy-in, political will, and public support to do something about it. The President has 

pledged to act on this priority—and the public supports it. According to a new U.S. 

Chamber poll, fully 70 percent of Americans want the Federal Government to invest 

in infrastructure. By similar margins, the poll showed that Americans understand 

that infrastructure investment will grow the economy, help businesses, and create 

jobs.’’ Our watershed project infrastructure should be a major part of this infrastructure investment. 

The Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA) dates to 1951, and represents those earthmoving contractors that have installed many of the watershed 

dams and most of the conservation practices on our nation’s landscape over time. 

They work closely with Soil & Water Conservation Districts and their motto is 

‘‘Dedicated to the Professional Conservation of Soil & Water.’’ The focus of LICA is 

to encourage high standards of workmanship in resource management land improvement practices, and to promote private enterprise in land improvement contracting. Training and safety are key LICA activities. They have also worked very 

closely with NRCS over the years. 

Let me close by sharing the LICA Creed. 

The LICA Creed 

Land, the Foundation of the Nation, 

the basis of all wealth, 

the heritage of the wise, the thrifty and prudent, 

the poor man’s joy and comfort, 

the silent partner of man, 

the producer of food, fiber, and fuel. 

The basis of factories, 

the foundation of banks, 

all that man builds is from the land. 

We often take it for granted, or even abuse it, 

and yet many unthinking and unknowingly pass the land by. 

What man finally does with the land will be the deciding factor of his survival. 

LICA and I pledge our full support to you as you continue your most important 

work. I have nearly sixty years’ experience in natural resource watershed infrastructure conservation, and would be pleased to serve as a resource as needed, as would 

our contractor members. 

39 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. 

Respectfully submitted by: 

JOHN W. PETERSON, 

Director of Government Relations, 

Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA). 

ATTACHMENT

Accumulation By State 

Or Territory 

Program Funding Code Or Project Authorization 

Total 

P.L. 83–566 P.L. 83–534 Pilot RC&D Other 

Alabama 100 0 0 7 0 107 

Arizona 21 0 2 2 0 25 

Arkansas 181 0 24 3 0 208 

California 15 0 1 0 0 16 

Colorado 87 0 55 3 0 145 

Connecticut 29 0 0 1 0 30 

Florida 10 0 0 0 0 10 

Georgia 218 117 12 10 0 357 

Hawaii 8 0 0 1 0 9 

Idaho 3 0 0 0 0 3 

Illinois 55 0 11 0 0 66 

Indiana 132 0 0 2 0 134 

Iowa 1,066 485 29 35 0 1,615 

Kansas 800 0 14 17 0 831 

Kentucky 182 0 17 1 0 200 

Louisiana 35 0 0 0 0 35 

Maine 16 0 0 0 0 16 

Maryland 16 0 0 0 0 16 

Massachusetts 29 0 0 1 0 30 

Michigan 13 0 0 0 0 13 

Minnesota 37 0 8 6 0 51 

Mississippi 188 367 0 5 0 560 

Missouri 1,148 0 30 25 0 1,203 

Montana 16 0 0 3 0 19 

Nebraska 619 0 106 13 0 738 

Nevada 8 0 0 0 0 8 

New Hampshire 24 0 0 0 0 24 

New Jersey 19 0 0 1 0 20 

New Mexico 75 0 2 2 0 79 

New York 52 0 2 5 0 59 

North Carolina 101 0 11 2 0 114 

North Dakota 39 0 10 1 0 50 

Ohio 48 0 16 0 0 64 

Oklahoma 987 1,107 6 7 0 2,107 

Oregon 6 0 0 0 0 6 

Pennsylvania 82 0 0 9 0 91 

South Carolina 97 0 7 1 0 105 

South Dakota 33 0 2 21 3 59 

Tennessee 133 0 9 1 0 143 

Texas 697 1,242 60 4 0 2,003 

Utah 40 0 3 2 0 45 

Vermont 4 0 0 0 0 4 

Virginia 118 29 3 0 0 150 

Washington 3 0 0 0 0 3 

West Virginia 77 81 7 4 1 170 

Wisconsin 85 0 2 1 0 88 

Wyoming 12 0 0 1 1 14 

Puerto Rico 2 0 0 0 0 2 

Totals 7,766 3,428 449 197 5 11,845 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. 

Mr. Finney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN FINNEY, PRESIDENT, RED RIVER 

MANAGEMENT BOARD; CO-CHAIR, RED RIVER RETENTION 

AUTHORITY, HUMBOLDT, MN 

Mr. FINNEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

and Members of the Committee. My name is John Finney, and I 

serve as the President of the Red River Watershed Management 

Board of Minnesota and the co-Chairman of the Red River Retention Authority. I farm with my brother Dan near the Canadian borVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN

11507001.eps
40 

der along the Red River up north where we experience frequent 

flooding and extended inundation of floodwater on our land. 

The Red River Retention Authority represents 22 Red River watersheds and water resource districts in North Dakota and Minnesota. The Retention Authority is a joint powers agreement between the Minnesota Red Board and the North Dakota Red River 

Joint Water Resources districts. 

The mission of the Retention Authority is to implement the longterm flood solutions plan set forth by the Red River Basin Commission, and you have an attachment that would have that report in 

it. 

Since the devastating flood of 1997, the Red River Board and the 

North Dakota Joint Board, the Retention Authority, along with 

several partners, have implemented projects that would provide 

over 185,000 acre-feet of flood storage upstream. While this is significant, it is only about 1⁄5 of the basin goal. 

These projects reduce flooding, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat and recreation. An acceleration of these efforts has occurred with the initiation of 20 RCPP, Regional Conservation Partnership Program, watershed planning efforts 

throughout the Red River Basin. 

During the development of the 2014 Farm Bill, the Retention Authority worked with our Federal Congressional delegations in Minnesota and North Dakota to modify existing policies and add a costshare funding component to implement retention projects. A few 

key enhancements were suggested to modify the USDA P.L. 83–566 

Program. These proposed modifications include eliminating the requirement under economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water resources and implementation studies from cost 

ratio calculations based on each individual project and instead 

allow flood control projects to be based an overall basin plan. 

Since our original suggestions to modify the P.L. 83–566 Program were not fully addressed, local watershed districts have encountered challenges with identifying and calculating the true and 

total benefits from implementing flood retention and flood damage 

reduction and environmental enhancements projects. Traditional 

benefit-cost analysis used by USDA for water resource projects 

makes the likelihood of future Federal funding to assist with retention project construction difficult. 

The priority of the Red River Board and the Retention Authority 

and its member districts is to demonstrate that the continued planning and implementation of these types of projects will enhance the 

infrastructure of rural America, improve water quality, and establish critical wildlife habitat for all basin residents. 

I propose that the Federal cost-share for the planning and implementation of flood retention and flood damage reduction projects 

should be based on their economic, ecological, and social benefits 

provided to the entire Red River Basin, comparable to the justification of various USDA conservation programs. This approach would 

be a significant improvement to the formula for Federal funding assistance that encourages the public-private partnership for the Red 

River Basin watersheds. 

For rural America to compete with this program, there needs to 

be a modification of existing programs or new programs created 

41 

that allow partnerships to thrive and encourage project implementation. These changes would assist in strengthening and achieving 

the partnership goals identified in the RCPP program. 

The 2014 RCPP program was an excellent start to assist organizations like our Red River Board and the Retention Authority to 

reach their goals. The foundation has been laid to plan and build 

distributed retention projects to alleviate local watershed and basin 

flooding problems while incorporating environmental enhancements 

to improve water quality, wildlife habitat, water supply, and recreation. 

Collectively we must continue to assist one another in achieving 

a safe and economical, productive Red River of the North basin. 

Please consider implementing these proposed changes to provide 

for USDA funds to be utilized for watershed and water resource 

projects using a variable cost-share rate based on true and identified needs not only of the RCPP watersheds, but the entire Red 

River basin. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to you today. 

We sincerely appreciate your continued efforts in drafting the new 

farm bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN FINNEY, PRESIDENT, RED RIVER MANAGEMENT

BOARD; CO-CHAIR, RED RIVER RETENTION AUTHORITY, HUMBOLDT, MN 

John Finney, President, Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB), 

Minnesota and Co-Chair, Red River Retention Authority (RRRA), farmer and resident of the Red River Basin. 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Agriculture Committee. 

My name is John Finney and I serve as the President of the RRWMB of Minnesota and as Co-Chair for the RRRA. I also farm with my brother, Dan Finney, 

near the Canadian border along the Red River of the North where we experience 

frequent flooding and extended inundation of floodwater on our farm. 

The RRRA represents 22 Red River of the North Basin watersheds and water resource districts in North Dakota and Minnesota. The RRRA is a partnership between the Minnesota RRWMB and the North Dakota RRJWRD. The genesis of the 

RRRA is to implement the Long Term Flood Solutions plan set forth by the Red 

River Basin Commission (see Attachment A). The RRRA’s basin wide goal is a 20% 

reduction in peak flows on the Red River of the North main stem and to reduce local 

watershed flooding by distributed watershed storage of floodwaters in upstream 

floodwater retention projects. 

Since the devastating flood of 1997, the RRWMB, RRJWRD and RRRA along with 

many Federal, state and local partners have implemented projects which have provided over 185,000 acre-feet of flood storage. While this is significant, it’s only about 

1⁄5 of the basin goal. 

These projects reduce flooding to residents and properties, improve water quality, 

and enhance wildlife habitat and recreation. An acceleration of these efforts has occurred with the initiation of 20 Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) 

watershed planning efforts throughout the Red River of the North Basin. The RRRA 

secured USDA RCPP funding in May of 2015. As a result, 20 small watershed plans 

in thirteen major watersheds in the Red River Basin are currently being developed 

throughout the basin (see Attachment B). 

In the development of the 2014 Farm Bill, the RRRA worked diligently with our 

Federal Congressional delegations in MN and ND to modify existing policies and 

add a cost-share funding component to the proposed farm bill to implement retention projects. A few key enhancements were suggested to modify the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Small Watershed Protection program, or 

P.L. 83–566 program. The ‘‘P.L. 83–566 watershed’’ program could be much more 

successful in the Red River basin if the suggested program modifications were made 

to address basin-wide resource issues in addition to the current local watershed resource issues. 

42 

These proposed program modifications include; eliminate the requirement under 

economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water resources implementation studies for individual benefit to cost ratio calculations on each individual 

project and instead allow flood control projects to be based upon an overall basin 

plan (see Attachment C; pages 10 and 11: RRRA Consolidated Subcommittee reports 

dated March 28, 2011 for other specific recommendations). 

Since our original suggestions to modify the P.L. 83–566 program were not fully 

addressed, local watershed districts working with their consultants in planning the 

20 RCPP watersheds have encountered challenges with identifying and calculating 

the true and total benefits from implementing flood retention and flood damage reduction and environmental enhancement projects. Traditional benefit-cost analysis 

used by USDA for water resource projects makes the likelihood of future Federal 

funding to assist with retention project construction difficult. 

A priority of the RRWMB, RRRA and its affiliated member watershed and water 

resource districts is to demonstrate that the continued planning and implementation 

of projects will enhance the infrastructure of rural America, improve water quality 

in lakes and streams, and establish critical wildlife habitats for all Red River basin 

residents. Determining the value of input costs of fertilizer or the revenue generated 

from hunting can be calculated, but valuing societal benefits of having adequate 

water quality and wildlife habitat is much more subjective and controversial. 

I propose that Federal cost-share for the planning and implementation of flood retention and flood damage reduction projects should be based on their economic, ecological and social benefits provided to the entire Red River of the North basin from 

a programmatic perspective comparable to the justification of various USDA Conservation Programs. This approach would be a significant improvement to the formula for providing Federal assistance that encourages a ‘‘Public-Private-Partnership’’ for the Red River of the North basin as well as small watersheds. For rural 

America to compete with this program, there needs to be modification of existing 

programs or new programs created that allow partnerships to thrive and encourage 

project implementation. These changes would assist in strengthening and achieving 

the partnership goals identified in the RCPP program. 

The 2014 RCPP was an excellent start to assist organizations like the RRWMB 

and the RRRA, which I represent, to reach their goals. The foundation has been laid 

to plan and build distributed retention projects to alleviate local watershed and 

basin flooding problems while incorporating environmental enhancements to improve water quality, wildlife habitat, water supply and recreation. Collectively, we 

must to continue to assist one another in achieving a safe and economically productive Red River of the North basin. 

Please consider implementing these proposed changes to provide for USDA funds 

to be utilized for watershed and water resource projects using a variable cost-share 

rate based on true and identified needs not only of RCPP watersheds but the entire 

Red River of the North basin. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to you today. We sincerely appreciate your continued efforts in drafting the new farm bill. 

[ATTACHMENT A] 

Red River Basin Commission’s Long-Term Flood Solutions for the Red River 

Basin 

Report Includes: 

• LTFS Executive Summary. 

• Conclusions and Recommendations for Action. 

• Funding Timeline for Project Implementation Costs: Along the Red River of the 

North and Tributaries. 

43 

September 2011 

Red River Basin Commission 

Moorhead Office, Winnipeg Office, 

119 5th St. S., Ste. 209, 410–112 Market Ave., 

P.O. Box 66, Winnipeg, MB 

Moorhead, MN 56561–0066 R3B 0P4 

218–291–0422 204–982–7250 

218–291–0438 Fax 204–982–7255 Fax 

1–866–629–4498 Toll Free 

staff@redriverbasincommission.org www.redriverbasincommission.org 

Vision 

A Red River Basin where residents, organizations, and governments work together to achieve basin-wide commitment to comprehensive integrated water stewardship and management. 

Mission 

To create a comprehensive integrated basin-wide vision, to build consensus and 

commitment to the vision, and to speak with a unified voice for the Red River Basin. 


11507003.eps 11507004.eps
44 

Red River Basin Commission’s Long-Term Flood Solutions for the Red River 

Basin 

The Red River Basin is an international, multi-jurisdictional watershed of 

45,0002 miles, with 80 percent of the basin lying in the United State[s] and 20 percent in Manitoba, Canada. Eighteen Minnesota counties and 22 North Dakota counties lie wholly or partially in the basin. The economic impact of the basin, from both 

urban-generated activity and a vibrant agricultural economy, is significant. This 

basin is home to more than half a million people, and serves as a jobs, education 

and medical hub, in addition to a world-renowned agricultural producer. 

Need for Action 

The increase in frequency and magnitude of flooding in the Red River basin is 

unmistakable. The spring flood of 1997 that decimated the metro center of Grand 

Forks-East Grand Forks and gravely threatened areas throughout the basin introduced a decade of flooding. Since 2000, the basin has experienced damaging flooding 


11507005.eps 11507006.eps
45 

in all but 2 years. Since 1997, most sites along the main stem have seen levels of 

flooding at or close to 100 year levels, some in more than one flood event. And tributary areas have experienced up to 500 year flood levels during the past decade. We 

know today that larger floods are both possible and probable. 

The Impetus 

Before the major flood waters of 2009 had even receded, state legislators in North 

Dakota and Minnesota asked the Red River Basin Commission (RRBC), as an international basin-wide organization, to spearhead the effort to develop a comprehensive, proactive plan that responds to and mitigates flooding throughout the watershed. Corresponding with the legislative charge were appropriations of half a million dollars from each state to execute the project. The RRBC was uniquely positioned for this endeavor given its ongoing organized effort to further commitment 

to shared land and water stewardship goals in the basin, including the goal of flood 

damage reduction. 

The Process 

The LTFS study process brought together professional and citizen water managers from all levels and from all the reaches of the basin. In addition to hands on 

involvement from the RRBC Board of Directors, umbrella committees were assembled (Policy, Technical) and specific issue workgroups to dissect the issues and identify solutions. In addition, a number of outside experts and agencies were contracted 

to develop information and analysis for central questions addressed in the study. 

Most importantly, the study was a grass-roots effort. It was launched with an extensive public engagement process of 21 public flood forums held in the Minnesota, 

North Dakota and South Dakota portions of the basin, with more than 1,000 

attendees in total. 

Citizens’ experiences, problems and concerns with flooding in the basin were solicited, together with suggestions for solutions. It was this public input that helped 

shape the study’s committees and issues to explore. A second series of public meetings was held in spring of 2011 in order to gather feedback from citizens on the primary directions and conclusions of the study. That feedback helped to guide final 

conclusions and recommendations. The results of the overall study findings are presented in this report to assist the basin’s residents, community leaders, water managers and policy makers. 

Assumptions for Future Conditions 

Pertinent to the LTFS plan development 

adopted by RRBC Board 2010 

Components of the LTFS plan are intended to be developed and implemented 

over the next 50 years. It is important to understand the assumptions under 

which this plan was developed. The following describe basic assumptions about 

several issue areas in the Red River basin that are key to plan development. 

Agriculture will continue to be the dominant land use through out the 

basin. Adequate surface drainage has been and will continue to be integral to 

maintaining productivity of cropland. Subsurface drainage is likely to become 

increasingly popular. 

Current development trends will continue into the foreseeable future. The 

major urban centers and communities will continue in their present locations. 

Major metro areas will continue to grow. Future development will occur in compliance with floodplain management regulations. 

Floods will continue into the future. Floods larger than historically experienced can be expected to occur. 

Flood damage reduction will need to be implemented in the basin based primarily on the identified needs of the basin residents and their willingness to 

provide or seek the funding necessary to implement the measures which they 

believe are appropriate, effective, and justified. State and Federal agencies will 

support the implementation of the various measures based on their policies, 

regulations and availability of funding. Flood damage reduction is just one 

issue that affects the sustainability of the region. 

Other key resource issues need to be considered as this plan is developed 

and implemented, including droughts, water supply, water quality, recreation 

and other natural resource areas. 

46 

Guidelines for Protection in the Basin 

Before the LTFS study, the only site protection guideline for levels of 

protection was the Federal (FEMA) requirement that mortgaged structures in 100 year floodplains (or lower) carry flood insurance. The 

problem with these guidelines for the Red River basin is that 100 year 

flood levels have been experienced on most reaches of the main stem 

and far surpassed in some tributary areas. RRBC developed baseline 

goals for levels of flood protection during the project. 

Level of Flood Protection Goals 

The LTFS review of current local protection policies and practices revealed that 

the basin lacks adequate guidelines on levels of protection appropriate for various 

basin locations. The following goals for levels of protection were developed as part 

of the study and approved by the RRBC to serve as a guideline for the residents 

of the Red River basin, its communities, and state/provincial and Federal agencies, 

as they plan and implement future local protection projects (see Appendix D, Table 

D–3). The intended outcome of the goals is to provide a long-term objective for communities and sites that will cumulatively reduce the risk of flooding and flood damages from potential floods of larger size than the basin has experienced in the recent 

past. The goals can help move the basin beyond a mode reactive to the last large 

flood to a proactive mode of using risk and damage assessments to put adequate 

protection into place to reduce flood risk across the basin. 

Level of Flood Protection Goals for the Red River Basin 

Area Protected Estimated Recurrence Interval 

Major urban/metropolitan areas 1–2, 4 500 year or greater 

Critical infrastructure 1–2 500 year or greater 

Cities/municipalities 1–2 200 year or greater 

Rural residences & farmsteads 1–2 100 year or greater 

Agricultural cropland: Summer flood 10 year or greater 

Transportation 2–3 Critical transportation system and 

emergency service links 

200 year or greater 

Notes: 

1Protection for urban areas, critical infrastructure, cities, rural residences, and farmsteads 

should all have appropriate freeboard (i.e., contingency or risk and uncertainty allowance) with 

any projects designed to provide the specified level of protection. 2 If a flood of record has occurred which exceeds the specified level of protection goal, the flood 

of record should be used in place of the specified level of protection goal. 3The critical transportation systems should be maintained passable during a flood of the described level of protection to assure safe and reliable transportation and provision of emergency 

services. The transportation system should not increase flooding problems either upstream or 

downstream. 4 Includes Fargo-Moorhead, Grand Forks-East Grand Forks, and Winnipeg. 


11507007.eps
47 

The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a group of people working 

together to achieve common goals for water protection and management 

within the Red River Basin. 

119 S. 5th St. PO Box 66 Moorhead, MN 56561 218–291–0422 

410–112 Market Ave. Winnipeg, MB R3B 094 204–982–7250 

staff@redriverbasincommission.org 

See the full report on our website: 

www.redriverbasincommission.org 

Current Levels of Protection Versus Needs in the Basin 

Although the strategy of local protection dates back many decades in the basin, 

the extent of existing site protection is still modest. The following table summarizes 

the levels of local site protection currently in place at basin communities and then 

compares that with RRBC’s levels of protection goals to identify the gaps and the 

needs. The table reveals that flood protection for events exceeding the 100 year level 

is an exception and that almost a third of the communities, on the average, have 

no permanent protection. Of those communities having permanent protection, fewer 

than half are protected to a 100 year level or higher. 

Comparison of Existing Flood Protection with Recommended Guidelines 

for Level of Protection 

City/Location 

RRBC 

Recommended 

Guideline for 

Level of Flood 

Protection 

Existing Level of Protection Existing Protection 

meets RRBC 

Recommended 

Guideline for 

Level of Flood 

Protection? 

500 

year 

200 

year 

100 

year 

Less 

than 

100 

year 

No 

Permanent 

Protection 

Red River Main Stem 

Wahpeton, ND 200 year X No 

Breckenridge, MN 200 year X No 

Fargo, ND 500 year X No 

Moorhead, MN 500 year X No 

Perley, MN 200 year X No 

Hendrum, MN 200 year X No 

Halstad, MN 200 year X Yes 

Nielsville, MN 200 year X No 

Grand Forks, ND 500 year X No 

East Grand Forks, MN 500 year X No 

Oslo, MN 200 year X Yes 

Drayton, ND 200 year X No 

Pembina, ND 200 year X No 

St. Vincent, MN 200 year X No 

Noyes, MN 200 year X No 

Emerson, MB 200 year X No 

Morris, MB 200 year X No 

Winnipeg, MB 500 year X Yes 

Minnesota Tributaries 

Georgetown 200 year X No 

Ada 200 year X No 

Shelly 200 year X No 

Climax 200 year X No 

Crookston 200 year X No 

Warren 200 year X No 

Alvarado 200 year X No 

Argyle 200 year X No 

Hallock 200 year X No 

Roseau 200 year X No 

North Dakota Tributaries 

Abercrombie 200 year X No 

Valley City 200 year X No 

Lisbon 200 year X No 

Horace 200 year X No 

West Fargo 500 year X Yes 

Enderlin 200 year X No 

Casselton 200 year X No 

Mapleton 200 year X No 

Harwood 200 year X No 

Argusville 200 year X No 

Devils Lake 200 year X No 

Minnewaukan 200 year X No 

Grafton 200 year X No 

Neche 200 year X No 

48 

Flood Routing Models 

Using MIKE 11, a flow routing model, the LTFS study was able to use the 

modeling information from sub-basins to predict the effect that reduced flows 

due to additional floodwater storage sites from the tributaries would have on 

various points on the main stem Red River. 

20% Reduction Model 

(Based on WMC MIKE 11 Model and tributary hydrologic models) 

(cla 1/16/2011) 

Tributar[y] Areas 

Planned by WSDs Original Allocation 

Peak 

Flow 

Reduction 

(cfs) 

Peak 

Flow 

Reduction (%) 

Volume 

Reduction 

(%) 

Volume 

Reduction 

(acft) 

Peak 

Flow 

Reduction (%) 

Volume 

Reduction (%) 

Volume 

Reduction (ac 

ft) 

Reduction Focus 

Summary of Tributary Flow Reductions 

1997 Spring Flood 

BdS R @ White Rock 1,048 13% 16% 51,219 20% 20% 61,760 Store early water 

Rabbit R @ TH 75 ung 1,425 31% 39% 47,639 35% 26% 24,377 Peak flow reduction 

BdS ungaged 0 0% 0% 0 13% 9% 12,119 No reduction 

Ottertail R @ Orwell 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 No reduction 

Ottertail ung 500 13% 12% 7,217 13% 12% 7,217 Peak flow reduction 

Wildrice ND @ Abercrombie 3,150 32% 6% 23,702 35% 17% 57,908 Peak flow reduction 

Fargo ungaged 3,000 13% 13% 30,433 13% 13% 30,433 Store late water 

Sheyenne R @ Harwood 2,401 23% 11% 68,395 23% 11% 68,395 Peak flow reduction 

Rush R @ Amenia 508 35% 13% 4,324 35% 13% 4,324 Peak flow reduction 

Buffalo R @ Dilworth 2,549 30% 17% 36,091 35% 17% 38,158 Peak flow reduction 

Wild Rice MN @ Hendrum 2,315 23% 20% 76,545 35% 20% 74,385 Peak flow reduction 

Halstad ung 7,500 13% 13% 81,002 13% 13% 81,002 Store late water 

Goose R @ Hillsboro 2,820 35% 16% 35,356 35% 16% 35,356 Peak flow reduction 

Marsh R nr Shelly 135 3% 8% 6,819 51% 18% 15,247 Peak flow reduction 

Sand Hill R @ Climax 43 1% 18% 19,184 35% 21% 22,161 Peak flow reduction 

Red Lake R @ Crookston 5,200 18% 8% 74,830 35% 13% 119,097 Peak flow reduction 

RLR ung 1,600 12% 10% 11,427 12% 10% 11,427 Store late water 

GF ungaged 4,400 12% 10% 32,015 12% 10% 32,015 Store late water 

Turtle Rnr Arvilla 90 10% 13% 4,615 10% 13% 4,615 Store late water 

Forest R @ Minto 300 14% 7% 5,875 14% 7% 5,875 Store late water 

Snake Rung 1,334 24% 16% 20,210 16% 15% 17,128 Store late water 

Middle R @ Argyle 751 20% 13% 8,371 35% 23% 15,067 Store late water 

Park R @ Grafton 2,422 47% 31% 40,739 35% 20% 26,462 Peak flow reduction 

Tamarac R ung 1,150 24% 13% 11,533 13% 12% 7,179 Store late water 

Drayton ung 1,370 8% 10% 22,208 8% 10% 22,208 Store late water 

S Br Two R @ Lake Bronson 503 12% 26% 21,735 27% 14% 15,208 Store late water 

Tongue R @ Akra 50 7% 4% 1,580 7% 4% 1,580 Store late water 

Pembina R @ Neche 1,900 13% 9% 51,113 13% 9% 51,113 Peak flow reduction 

Emerson ung 3,000 7% 7% 23,364 7% 7% 23,364 Store late water 

Average/Total 17% 13% 817,540 22% 13% 885,177 

Mainstem Locations 

Upstream 

Contributing 

Drainage 

Area 

Peak 

Flow 

Reduction 

(cfs) 

Peak Flow 

Reduction 

(%) 

Upstream 

Tributary 

Volume (ac 

ft) 

Upstream 

Tributary 

Volume 

Reduction (ac 

ft) 

Upstream 

Tributary 

Volume 

Reduction (%) 

Summary of Mainstem Flow Reductions 

1997 Spring Flood 

Wahpeton 4,010 2,723 21% 801,206 106,075 13% 

Fargo 6,210 5,459 19% 1,425,717 160,209 11% 

Halstad 15,430 14,236 20% 3,307,686 426,566 13% 

Grand Forks 21,690 14,985 14% 5,149,686 606,198 12% 

Drayton 20,679 16% 5,912,194 719,749 12% 

Emerson 25,861 20% 6,915,848 817,540 12% 

Less than allocation or goal.

Meets allocation or goal. Meets allocation or goal. 

Exceeds allocation or goal. Exceeds allocation or goal. 

Hydrologic models not completed. 

Potential Retention Projects 

From the Mike 11 modeling, individual watershed district can identify potential sites to achieve their allocation towards the 20 percent reduction on the 

main stem Red River. Here, Minnesota’s Bois de Sioux Watershed District in 

the very southeast portion of the basin put forth possible projects to be considered that would more than meet a 20 percent reduction. 

49 

Impoundment Sites included in Flow Reduction Strategy Bois de Sioux Watershed 

District 

4/19/2009 

Gated Storage 

(ac ft) 

Ungated Storage 

(ac ft) 

Total Storage (ac 

ft) 

RRBC 20% plan 

Reduction (ac ft) 

White Rock watershed 

Red Path 13,100 3,100 16,200 

Red Path West 5,501 545 6,046 

Eldorodo 7 1,700 755 2,455 

Big Lake 463 1,325 1,788 

Moonshine Lake 2,723 686 3,409 

Moonshine 13 1,520 328 1,848 

Moonshine 4 885 322 1,207 

Leonardsville 31E 1,046 413 1,459 

Dollymount 30 5,484 872 6,356 

Leonardsville 31W 1,592 350 1,942 

Tara 12 3,071 843 3,914 

Leonardsville 12 6,630 1,031 7,661 

Croke 17 2,142 605 2,747 

Dollymount 24 1,499 552 2,051 

Walls 36 1,897 850 2,747 

Moose Head 1,622 896 2,518 

Walls 30 3,831 937 4,768 

Delaware 17 1,695 518 2,213 

Everglades 1,965 890 2,855 

Township Slough 3,802 950 4,752 

South Dakota site(s) 8,771 2,193 10,964 

Subtotal 70,939 18,961 89,900 61,760 

Rabbit watershed 

North Ottawa 16,160 2,050 18,210 

Brandrup S23 3,020 980 4,000 

Bradford S34 3,042 627 3,669 

Lawrence S19 5,892 1,061 6,953 

Tintah S34 833 160 993 

Daniels 867 223 1,090 

Subtotal 29,814 5,101 34,915 24,377 

Bois de Sioux Ungaged 

Subtotal 0 0 0 12,119 

Total BdS watershed 100,753 24,062 124,815 98,256 

50 

Status of New Hydrologic Model Development (HMS) Using LiDAR Data 

(all colored watersheds are underway) 

Red River Watershed, North Dakota/Minnesota 

Uncertainty of Storage Discharges Along The Red River of the North at 

White Rock Dam for the 1997 and 2009 Floods 

Potential Effects of Storage on Cities 

The potential effects of flow reduction were evaluated in several ways. In the following table, the approximate potential flow and stage reductions from the 1997 

flood are computed for each of six points on the main stem using the proposed reduction allocations and proposed storage for sub-basins upstream of each of the six 

sites (see Appendix D, Table D–17). The resulting flow reductions range from 17% 

at Grand Forks-East Grand Forks to 24% at Emerson. The resulting stage reductions for the 1997 flood would have ranged from 1.3′ near the border at Emerson 

to 2.8′ at Grand Forks-East Grand Forks. 


11507015.eps 11507016.eps
51 

Effects of Potential Additional Flood Storage on 1997 Flood Stages 

Upstream/Tributary Drainage Areas 

Total 

Volume of 

1997 Flood 

(MIKE 11 

Model) (ac 

ft) 

Peak Flow 

of 1997 

Flood 

(MIKE 11 

Model) (cfs) 

Potential 

Additional 

Storage in 

Watershed 

(ac ft) 

Modified 

Peak Flow 

with 

Potential 

Storage 

(cfs) 

Peak Flow 

Reduction 

of Potential 

Storage (ac 

ft) 

Peak Flow 

Reduction 

of Potential 

Storage (%) 

Approx. 

Peak Stage 

Reduction 

of Potential 

Storage (ft) 

Bois de Sioux @ White Rock Dam 7,820 78,900 6,770 1,050 13% 

Rabbit River @ TH 75 ungaged 4,570 34,900 3,140 1,430 31% 

Bois de Sioux ungaged 8,540 0 8,540 0 0% 

Otter Tail River @ Orwell Dam 1,500 0 1,500 0 0% 

Otter Tail River ungaged 3,800 11,000 3,300 500 13% 

Wahpeton/Breckridge 742,000 12,890 124,800 10,170 2,720 21%2.4 

Wild Rice River @ Abercrombie 9,930 75,500 6,780 3,150 32% 

Fargo ungaged 23,000 42,000 20,000 3,000 13% 

Fargo/Moorhead 1,450,000 28,570 242,300 23,110 5,460 19% 2.3 

Sheyenne River @ Harwood 10,300 120,000 7,900 2,400 23% 

Rush River @ Amenia 1,450 14,900 940 510 35% 

Buffalo River @ Dilworth 8,370 63,000 5,820 2,550 30% 

Wild Rice River @ Hendrum 10,150 118,000 7,840 2,310 23% 

Halstad Ungaged (includes Elm 

River) 

57,000 142,000 49,500 7,500 13% 

Halstad 3,310,000 71,390 700,200 57,190 14,200 20% 1.7 

Goose River @ Hillsboro 8,060 62,000 5,240 2,820 35% 

Marsh River near Shelly 4,070 0 3,930 140 3% 

Sand Hill River @ Climax 4,370 39,000 4,320 50 1% 

Red Lake River @ Crookston 28,980 270,000 19,580 9,400 32% 

Red Lake River ungaged 13,600 20,000 12,000 1,600 12% 

Grand Forks ungaged 36,400 56,000 32,000 4,400 12% 

Grand Forks/East Grand Forks 5,130,000 110,750 1,147,200 91,750 19,000 17% 2.8 

Turtle River near Arvilla 930 11,500 840 90 10% 

Forest River @ Minto 2,100 10,000 1,800 300 14% 

Snake River ungaged 5,510 30,000 4,180 1,330 24% 

Middle River @ Argyle 3,710 26,000 2,960 750 20% 

Park River @ Grafton 5,110 50,300 2,690 2,420 47% 

Tamarac River ungaged 4,820 13,000 3,670 1,150 24% 

Drayton ungaged 17,170 39,000 15,800 1,370 8% 

Drayton 5,820,000 128,320 1,327,000 102,320 26,000 20% 1.7 

South Branch Two Rivers @ Lake 

Bronson 

4,060 27,000 3,560 500 12% 

Tongue River @ Akra 680 3,000 630 50 7% 

Pembina River @ Neche 14,300 90,000 12,400 1,900 13% 

Emerson ungaged 42,000 41,000 39,000 3,000 7% 

Emerson 6,740,000 129,800 1,488,000 98,800 31,000 24% 1.3 

Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were exceeded.

Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were met. Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were met. 

Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were not met. Indicates that Flow Reduction Goals were not met. 

Results of Complimentary Floodplain Management Approaches 

Reducing flood risk in the Red River basin requires the working together of the 

three complimentary approaches of floodplain management: (1) nonstructural attention to the physical floodplain and land use practices, both urban and rural, together with participation in Federal programs such as NFIP; (2) local site protection 

for vulnerable damage sites such as communities, urban centers and, as possible, 

agricultural lands; and (3) reduction of peak flood flows through a basin-wide effort. 

Level of Protection at Cities along the Red River 

City/Location 

Level of Protection 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline 

Current 

Conditions 

Meets 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline? 

Future 

Conditions 

Including 

Planned 

Upgrades 

Meets 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline? 

Future 

Conditions 

Including 

Planned 

Upgrades 

plus Potential Upstream 

Flood Storage 

Meets 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline? 

Additional 

Measures 

Needed to 

Meet RRBC 

Recommended 

Guideline? 

Peak Flow 

Reduction 

of Potential 

Storage (%) 

Red River Main Stem 

Wahpeton, ND 200 yr 100–125 yr No 100–125 yr No <200 yr No Yes 

Breckenridge, MN 200 yr 100–125 yr No 100–125 yr No <200 yr No Yes 

Fargo, ND 500 yr <100 yr No >200 yr No >200 yr No Yes 

Moorhead, MN 500 yr <100 yr No >200 yr No >200 yr No Yes 

Georgetown, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No 

52 

Level of Protection at Cities along the Red River—Continued 

City/Location 

Level of Protection 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline 

Current 

Conditions 

Meets 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline? 

Future 

Conditions 

Including 

Planned 

Upgrades 

Meets 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline? 

Future 

Conditions 

Including 

Planned 

Upgrades 

plus Potential Upstream 

Flood Storage 

Meets 

RRBC Recommended 

Guideline? 

Additional 

Measures 

Needed to 

Meet RRBC 

Recommended 

Guideline? 

Peak Flow 

Reduction 

of Potential 

Storage (%) 

Perley, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No 

Hendrum, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No 

Halstad, MN 200 yr 250 yr Yes 250 yr Yes >250 yr Yes No 

Shelly, MN 200 yr <100 yr No 100 yr No >200 yr Yes No 

Nielsville, MN 200 yr * No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes 

Climax, MN 200 yr * No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes 

Grand Forks, ND 500 yr 250 yr No 250 yr No >500 yr Yes No 

East Grand Forks, MN 500 yr 250 yr No 250 yr No >500 yr Yes No 

Oslo, MN 200 yr >200 yr Yes >200 yr Yes >200 yr Yes No 

Drayton, ND 200 yr <100 yr No <100 yr No <100 yr No Yes 

Pembina, ND 200 yr 100 yr No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes 

St. Vincent, MN 200 yr <100 yr No >100 yr No 200 yr Yes No 

Noyes, MN 200 yr 100 yr No 100 yr No >100 yr No Yes 

* No permanent protection. 

Summary of Damages Prevented by Potential LTFS Projects 

The following figure summarizes the estimated damages prevented by the potential LTFS local protection projects, combined with a 20% flow reduction on 

the Red River main stem. Prevented damages are estimated for 100 year, 200 

year and 500 year floods. 

Prevented damages are computed for both (1) baseline hydrology, or that currently used by the USACE and (2) wet period hydrology, or that recommended 

by the current USACE feasibility study for Fargo-Moorhead flood protection. 

Depending on the hydrology used, damages prevented by the potential LTFS 

projects will range from about $3 to [$]4 billion for a single 100 year flood, from 

$6.5 to [$]8 billion for a single 200 year flood, and from $10 to [$]13 billion for a 

single 500 year flood. 

Working together with sound, proactive floodplain management, the potential 

LTFS projects can make a profound, measureable difference far into the future 

for the Red River basin. 

53 

Total Prevented Damages of Potential LTFS Projects—Red River Basin 

Part IV: Moving Ahead With Integrated Action 

10 Conclusions and Recommendations for Action 

The basin of the Red River of the North, historically subject to widespread chronic 

flooding, regularly sustains millions of dollars in economic damages for each flood 

event. The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) identified the following conclusions on structural and nonstructural strategies needed for permanent flood solutions in the basin and recommendations for action for states (individually and collectively) and the Federal Government to consider as they fund and implement Long 

Term Flood Solutions (LTFS) for the Red River Basin in Minnesota and North Dakota. These recommendations are built around the basin-wide LTFS ‘‘Level of Protection Goals’’ adopted by the RRBC in 2010 together with related flood risk reduction needs. The recommendations aim to move basin leaders from the usual response of reacting to the most recent major flood experience to a proactive, longterm plan with appropriate protection levels basin wide. If implemented, these recommendations will significantly reduce the risk of flood damages, and minimize disruption and economic loss and thus facilitate and expedite recovery after spring and 

summer floods. 

These recommendations cannot be successful without the dedicated local, 

state and Federal participation in funding and commitment to implement. 

1. Immediate Needs/Critical Risks: Fargo-Moorhead, Devils Lake 

• Under current conditions, the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area could get, in 

a major 500 year level flood, $9 to $10 billion or more in basin damages, 

according to the USACE. 

• Current levels of protection for Fargo-Moorhead are inadequate. Protection should be increased to enable a successful 500 year flood fight. 

• Protection measures for Fargo-Moorhead should be economically viable and 

provide the least level of adverse impacts to others. 

• A diversion of the Red River around Fargo-Moorhead would provide the protection needed to endure a successful 500 year flood fight if it were supplemented by retention and other available options to achieve the RRBC’s proposed 

LTFS level of protection goals. 

• Retention to achieve the potential 20 percent flow reduction on the main stem 

should be aggressively pursued upstream of Fargo-Moorhead to decrease the duVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN

11507017.eps
54 

ration, scope, and level of floods in the Fargo-Moorhead area, downstream communities, and rural areas. 

Recommendation for Action 1.1 

The flood protection trajectory that has increased protection in the FargoMoorhead metro area since the 2009 flood should continue. State and Federal funds, 

with local government cost share, should continue supporting ongoing dike construction, property acquisitions, flowage easements, and flood infrastructure projects to 

be able to fight at least a 100 year flood, and upwards of a 500 year flood in the 

long-term. 

Recommendation for Action 1.2 

Progress towards the proposed $1.77 billion diversion should be continued utilizing local, state, and Federal funds so that, combined with current flood protection 

strategies, this community will have the capacity within 10 years to wage a successful flood fight equal to or greater than the LTFS 500 year flood. 

Recommendation for Action 1.3 

Retention upstream of the Hickson and Abercrombie stream gage for a flow reduction of 20 percent (minimum) should be advanced with shared funding by the F– 

M flood Diversion Authority working with local and joint water boards, using city, 

local, state, and Federal funds. 

Recommendation for Action 1.4 

Leaders in state government in North Dakota and Minnesota, along with key local 

government officials and with input from the Diversion Authority and Federal agencies, should convene by early 2012 to determine the non-Federal cost share formula for the Locally Preferred Plan ($1.77 billion) diversion, and related $3.5 

million operational estimates. 

• Rising levels of water in the Devils Lake region have increased the potential for a natural overflow that could discharge approximately 14,000 cubic feet 

per second (cfs) of water into the Sheyenne River, triggering prolonged flooding 

and catastrophic downstream water quantity and quality problems in the 

Sheyenne and Red Rivers. This crisis should continue to be addressed with immediate local, state and Federal action. 

Recommendation for Action 1.5 

The recommendations developed by the Devils Lake Executive Committee 

through the work of the Devils Lake Collaborative Working Group should continue 

to be supported by the state of North Dakota, local authorities, and Federal and 

Tribal governments to guard against critical risks. 

Recommendation for Action 1.6 

The RRBC and IRRB should distribute information with downstream interests 

and jurisdictions providing progress and timelines on Devils Lake activities. 

Recommendation for Action 1.7 

A comprehensive model using real-time data to determine the effects of releases 

of Devils Lake water via the various outlet channels on the Sheyenne and Red 

Rivers should be examined by local leaders and state and Federal agencies to determine needs and related costs. The examination should include the integration of 

various models already in use by the USGS, the NWS, the NDSWC, and the USACE 

and be facilitated by the RRBC. 

2. Cornerstone Solutions: Floodplain Management 

2A Floodplain Management—Nonstructural Strategies 

• A majority of the basin population lives adjacent to the Red River main stem 

and its tributaries at the lowest geographic elevation subject to flooding with 

no comprehensive, basin-wide approach to floodplain management, nor 

is there a mechanism to align the variations in local, state, and Federal rules, 

regulations, and approaches. 

• Nonstructural floodplain management strategies should be an integral 

component of reducing flood damage risks in the basin. 

• The most effective overall technique for living with floods is for basin citizens 

to take personal responsibility for their own flood risk and for the sustainability of our natural resources. 

• Minnesota and North Dakota should fund and administer flood mitigation 

policy consistently throughout the Red River basin so that a flood event in excess of the 100 year becomes the benchmark for managing the risk of flooding, 

55 

regulating development in the floodplain, and for developing flood risk reduction 

projects around existing and newly developed areas. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.1 

State floodplain regulations and local zoning ordinances should contain criteria for 

new residential, commercial, industrial, and agribusiness development that 

requires the largest of the following protection standards: 

• 100 year flood plus 3′. 

• 200 year flood plus 1′. 

• flood of record plus 1′. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.2 

Buildings located in at-risk areas where structural measures cannot accomplish the recommended flood protection levels or are not economically feasible 

should be publicly acquired and removed over the next 3 to 5 years. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.3 

Local governments in the basin should update floodplain ordinances in the 

next 3 years, not permit new development in areas of high risk of flooding 

immediately adjacent to the Red River and tributaries, and minimize the use of 

variances, unless protected by elevation or another acceptable FEMA strategy. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.4 

A review of basic floodplain regulations and programs should be undertaken 

by appropriate agencies and stakeholders of local, state and Federal standards, to 

include: 

2A.4.1 An evaluation of the appropriate standards and regulations for 

development throughout the basin, including the adequacy of the 100 year 

regulatory minimum standard (to include FIRMS) and the consideration of future standards to reduce losses; 

2A.4.2 An analysis of community and state compliance with the flood insurance program, to include an analysis of proposed mandatory flood insurance 

for structures protected by dikes, identification of impediments to, and potential 

tools and resources for, participation in FEMA’s community Rating System, determination of the feasibility of insurance development, and a strategy to 

prompt a basin-wide reduction in flood insurance rates; 

2A.4.3 An analysis of the use of variances by local governments; the reasons for and consequences of using variances for individuals, communities, and 

state; and most effective way(s) to track and document the use of variances. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.5 

Every community and county in the basin should work toward joining or improving their rating through the national FEMA Community Rating System to 

achieve lower flood insurance premiums for their residents (40–45 percent discounts) by 2015 as part of their mitigation plan update. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.6 

A Floodplain Bill of Rights, to include a floodplain map and flooding history, 

should be developed by RRBC with local government, realtors, builders, developers, 

FEMA, and state agency participation (2012). 

Recommendation for Action 2A.7 

RRBC should develop education materials on the floodplain related to the floodplain, insurance, personal decisions, and the Floodplain Bill of Rights, to be distributed to the public, realtors, lenders, and others (2012). 

Recommendation for Action 2A.8 

The USACE nonstructural assessment of identified structures has been completed 

for the F–M diversion project along the main stem in six counties deemed economically feasible for nonstructural mitigation. 

2A.8.1 The USACE should expand its assessment along the entire main 

stem. 

2A.8.2 A local sponsor should be identified to provide the non-Federal cost 

share of 35 percent and implement the mitigation in the next 3 to 5 years. 

2A.8.3 Congress should authorize such a project and appropriate ap- proximately $12 million in funding for the 65 percent Federal cost share to 

mitigate. 

Recommendation for Action 2A.9 

56 

Minnesota and North Dakota should use their respective state Silver Jackets 

(Flood and Hazard Mitigation) teams to regularly communicate issues regarding 

flood mitigation efforts in the Red River Basin. Silver Jackets team members from 

Minnesota and North Dakota should contribute to a collaborative interstate 

strategy for flood recovery and projects for mitigation efforts for the Red 

River of the North basin, to be coordinated with the RRBC and others as deemed 

appropriate. 

2B Floodplain Management—Raising Levels of Protection 

• Comprehensive and strategic level of protection goals are needed for the entire 

basin. To this point, existing levels of protection have been based most often on 

the most recent flood experience, political will, and funding availability. 

» The Minnesota and North Dakota legislatures should use the RRBC Level of 

Flood Protection Goals as a guide to future basin flood risk reduction strategies. 

(See ‘‘Level of Flood Protection Goals’’ adopted by the RRBC Board (2010) in 

LTFS Report, Ch. 8. Analysis assumes required freeboard.[)] 

Major Urban/Metropolitan Areas 

» Fargo-Moorhead (see Section 1. Biggest Risks). 

• Grand Forks-East Grand Forks. Over the next 20 to 25 years, Minnesota 

and North Dakota should support increasing protection to a 500 year flood 

level for Grand Forks-East Grand Forks by improving the cities’ current 

200 to 250 year protection with upstream retention that achieves the potential 

minimum 20 percent flow reduction on the Red River main stem at Grand 

Forks. 

• Winnipeg has elevated its level of protection to 700 years by recent expansion 

of their diversion following the 1997 flood. Since its construction and subsequent first use in 1969, the floodway has operated over 20 times and prevented 

more than $10 billion in flood damages. This model shows the importance of 

long range planning to realize the protection required from potential large 

floods. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.1 

Grand Forks and East Grand Forks should each request the 500 year or greater 

level of protection through the appropriate state and Federal legislative avenues. 

Planning should recognize the degree to which the strategy of retention can assist 

in achieving this level of protection for the two cities. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.2 

The RRBC shall facilitate an exchange between officials in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 

and Fargo-Moorhead local government officials, the F–M Diversion Authority, and 

the public for the purpose of sharing Winnipeg’s experiences and expertise on 

the development and expansion of that city’s diversion, including engineering, construction, and operation and maintenance of the Red River Floodway. 

Critical Infrastructure: 

• Critical infrastructure needs to be protected from flooding to the greatest levels practical. If adversely affected by flooding, infrastructure such as 

water and waste water facilities, airports, hospitals, transportation, regional 

communications facilities, or chemical storage sites can experience major disruptions, resulting in harm to the people, economy, and environment of the 

basin. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.3 

Over the next 3 to 5 years, state emergency management officers shall facilitate 

the identification and documentation of at-risk critical basin infrastructure and 

report to the state legislatures in the annual LTFS update. 

Small Cities and Municipalities: 

• By 2015, cities in Minnesota and North Dakota on the main stem, tributaries, 

and in other flood prone areas should achieve protection to the 100 year level 

or 3′ of freeboard the largest flood in their area plus 3′ of freeboard, 

whichever is greater. 

• Once cities have achieved this level of protection, additional protection should 

be pursued towards achieving greater than 200 year flood protection using 

upstream retention. Flood flow reduction from upstream retention can further 

complement the current levees and other strategies underway or contemplated. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.4 

57 

Community structural projects in collaboration with the RRWMB and RRJWRD 

should be funded in the next state funding cycle for each respective state. See attached funding timeline table D–31 and Level of Protection Appendix D, D–3.1, p. 

12 with state, local and Federal funding. 

Rural Residences and Farmsteads: 

Funding ring dikes or elevating of buildings for rural residents and farmsteads 

in flood prone areas should protect to 3′ above the 100 year level or 3′ above the 

largest flood in their area, whichever is greater. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.5 

Structural projects identified in collaboration with the RRWMB and RRJWRD for 

rural areas, including ring dikes and rural property acquisitions, should be 

funded beginning in the next state funding cycle through 2015 for each respective 

state. For those projects that become necessary only after future floods, funding 

shall become available in subsequent funding cycles. See attached funding table D– 

31 and Level of Protection Appendix D, D–3.1, p. 12. 

Agricultural Cropland: 

• Agriculture is an economic mainstay of the basin, with basin farms experiencing composite net returns of $3 billion or more annually. 

• Adequate drainage, whether surface or tile, is crucial to crop production in 

the basin. 

• Studies such as the timing analysis study suggest that improvements to 

drainage systems in areas that contribute consistently to the rising side of the 

Red River flood hydrograph (early water) have the potential to help reduce Red 

River flood peaks if they can move runoff through the system ahead of flood 

peaks. (Minnesota Flood Damage Reduction Workgroup Technical Paper No. 11) 

• At this time, no comprehensive, systematic approach exists to coordinate the 

release of water in the current drainage system based upon this timing 

analysis. Recent improvements in modeling, flow data, and elevation data can 

be utilized to better manage water to reduce flooding on the Red River. 

• The strategies that slow water or hold it on the land slightly longer (while 

allowing for timely movement in the drainage system) are best implemented 

through land use and easement programs that take into account landowner impacts, as well as benefits to the local area the main stem. 

• Potential exists to appropriate new Federal funding for land management 

to the basin through the next U.S. farm bill that will assist landowners in reducing runoff, reducing erosion, and improving water quality. This effort will 

come through programs administered by the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service or its designee. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.6 

The RRRA, RRWMB, and RRJWRD, with appropriate state agencies, local government, and commodity group participation and support, should develop a multipurpose drainage strategy for agricultural land that evaluates the following: 

2.10.1 Designed and engineered for both private benefits and public water 

management objectives. 

2.10.2 Temporary detention (slowing down of water) by land management 

practices and land use changes. 

2.10.3 Side inlet controls for all ditches. 

2.10.4 Use of drainage for peak flow reductions and erosion control. 

2.10.5 Rate and volume of water related to field and drain capacity. 

2.10.6 Timing and movement of water in an equitable manner. 

2.10.7 Landowner incentives and needs. 

2.10.8 Adding drainage components to hydrologic models. 

2.10.9 Need for studies, strategies, moratoriums, and additional information. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.7 

River channel maintenance such as snagging and clearing of trees, including 

the removal of trees that have or are at risk of falling into rivers and waterways, 

should be continued as necessary to maintain open waterways systems. The two 

states should continue to fund this effort: under current policies, North Dakota at 

its level of about $1 to $2 million, and Minnesota to restore its historic level of 

$150,000 per year. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.8 

58 

For purposes of achieving long-term flood retention and other benefits, Minnesota 

should provide state funding through bonding of $10 million a biennium for the Red 

River basin through the Board of Water and Soil Resources for Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) easements to match or supplement Federal USDA conservation 

funding such as the Wetland Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, 

EWP, and Environmental Quality Assurance Programs to achieve long term flood 

retention to leverage Federal funding in the next 5 year farm bill and for other benefits. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.9 

A basin wetland bank whereby farmers/landowners can purchase and exchange 

wetland credits should be developed by Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota 

in partnership with NRCS and the local joint water resource districts in North Dakota and joint watershed districts in Minnesota. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.10 

The following pilot projects, demonstrations, and studies should be authorized and funded: 

2B.10.1 Drainage as a Flood Reduction Tool Analysis: The RRRA, with appropriate state agency support, shall initiate an analysis of how to better utilize 

the surface drainage system to lower spring flood hydrographs by removing 

water on the rising side of the hydrograph consistent with the early, middle, 

and late zones. 

2B.10.2 Culvert Inventory: An analysis outlining the advantages, disadvantages, benefits, and costs of a basin-wide culvert inventory gathered at the 

local water board level should be completed by RRBC and presented to the appropriate local and state entities with recommended funding from local, state, 

and Federal sources (2012). 

2B.10.3 Culvert Size Demonstration Project: A demonstration project in 

partnership with NRCS and affected local water boards should be implemented 

to analyze the flow reduction benefits of small distributed and culvertsizing retention. The project, estimated to cost about $1.5 million, should be 

75/25 percent Federal/non-Federal cost shared (2012). 

2B.10.4 Ag Damage Report: The 1980 and 2002 basin agriculture flood 

damage reports should be updated and documented in a continuously updated 

data base, with Federal funds provided through USDA to provide local project 

benefit/cost information to assist in local impoundment strategies at the local 

landowner and water board level. 

2B.10.5 Wetland Water Level Management Pilot Project: Within the next 2 

years, a pilot project should be funded by NRCS in cooperation with the RRRA 

and other appropriate state and Federal agencies to draw down wetlands in 

the autumn enabling spring storage and determining benefits and impacts 

for habitat and retention. 

2B.10.6 Multi-Purpose Pilot Project: A demonstration project with funding 

and participation from farm and commodity groups and other interested parties 

should be developed and implemented in 2012, with RRBC assistance, to gather 

data on the timing and impacts on flooding from the following: tile drainage, 

surface drainage, wetland restoration, early water ditch drainage, and 

culvert sizing. 

2B.10.7 Tile Drainage Study: A tile drainage analysis by the RRRA 

through the Basin Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee under the staff 

direction of the International Water Institute should be funded by the RRWMB 

and RRJWRD and completed in 2012. 

2B.10.8 Buffer Strip: Buffer strips should be established and enforced at the 

local level for all natural, altered, and man-made waterways to a minimum of 

16.5′ (1 rod) and a maximum of 50′ or more with incentives provided to landowners to reduce sediment for water quality and maintenance cost benefits and 

to slow the flow of water into the waterways. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.11 

The rural flood control systems that protect agricultural productivity and the 

economy from spring and summer floods should continue to be implemented 

throughout the basin. The goal is to reduce crop loss and to reduce planting delays 

by moving water off of land by mid-May in the spring and maximize flood control 

designs for peak run off for a 24 hour summer rainfall event with a 10 year reoccurrence interval. 

Critical Transportation System and Emergency Services: 

59 

• The Red River basin covers approximately 45,0002 miles or 28 million acres, 

a majority directly in active agricultural production, with an extensive system 

of highways, roads, and bridges that provide for the movement of goods and 

people to enhance the economic output of the region. 

• The RRBC should facilitate discussions with regional organizations, state and 

Federal departments of transportation, and EMOs, to identify a strategy for 

critical transportation preservation including potential road elevations during 100, 200, and 500 year flood levels compatible with the LTFS level of protection goals. 

• Critical transportation and emergency services throughout the basin are 

inconsistent with each other and fail to operate effectively for a typical flood 

event. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.12 

Minnesota and North Dakota should each explore the issues surrounding dedicating a portion of state aid for highway funding for culvert sizing and related road modifications that benefit basin flood damage reduction strategies and 

introduce legislation to change state law if necessary. The RRBC shall assist with 

facilitation the discussion and analysis, by the end of 2013. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.13 

An analysis of planned and proposed road elevations for 100, 200, and 500 year 

flood protection at township, county and state levels for emergency, population sustainability, and agricultural and economic production needs shall be developed. Engineering expertise funded and directed by the RRWMB, RRJWRD, and appropriate 

state agencies should identify needs by location and hydrologic impacts on flooding 

by change of flows, elevation of the flood stage, and other related impacts using the 

new LiDAR data. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.14 

Minnesota and North Dakota should develop through their Departments of Transportation, a state and local funding strategy to assist in county and township 

flood-related road repairs and implement additional flood mitigation efforts once 

the protection goals are achieved and Federal emergency aid under a disaster declaration is less likely. 

Recommendation for Action 2B.15 

The RRBC should facilitate discussions with relevant regional organizations, state 

and Federal departments of transportation, and emergency management offices to 

identify a strategy for critical transportation preservation, including potential 

road elevations during the 100, 200, and 500 year flood levels, and to identify state 

and Federal funding needs. 

2C Floodplain Management—Retention 

• No comprehensive, basin-wide strategy exists to implement the LTFS minimum 20 percent flow reduction goal for the main stem while achieving local 

tributary flood damage reduction. 

• The impacts of retention are often dependant on timing and location. Not all 

sites are equally beneficial for local tributary and basin main stem flood damage 

reduction. 

• Flow reduction through retention as demonstrated by modeling can reduce 

flows and stages on the Red River main stem as well as provide local benefits 

on tributaries. However, due to the variability of flood events, retention must 

be used in conjunction with other structural and non-structural measures to 

achieve the LTFS goals that will result in basin-wide improved levels of protection. 

• The minimum goal for flow reduction on the Red River main stem at the international boundary for a 100 year flood equates to around 1.5 million acrefeet of storage upstream accounting for timing of flow and costing approximately $1.5 billion. 

• Retention using the minimum 20 percent flow reduction goal basin-wide 

can be achieved over the next 20 years if local, state, and Federal funds are 

leveraged to provide comprehensive local, tributary and main stem benefits for 

residents, property, and the environment. 

• Retention that will cumulatively achieve the basin minimum 20 percent flow 

reductions over the next 20 to 25 years should be managed to improve flood control, improve water quality, include natural resource enhancement opportunities, and provide potential water supply during extended droughts. 

60 

• Numerous small, aged P.L. 83–566 flood control dams throughout the basin 

could provide additional capacity for flood storage retention with refurbishment. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.1 

Federal funding should be provided for retention at $25 million per year or $500 

million over the next 20 years, with Minnesota, North Dakota, and local governments providing cost share funding for retention to achieve a minimum 20 percent 

reduction in peak flows on the Red River. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.2 

Cost for retention projects should be shared among Federal (50 to 75 percent), 

states of Minnesota and North Dakota (25 to 35 percent), and the RRWMB, 

RRJWRD and local water boards (10 to 25 percent) over a period of 20 years staying 

within the current local joint board two mil levy. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.3 

A review of federally operated reservoirs, identifying the potential for increased storage during flood events, should be conducted by USACE and state agencies, and Wildlife Management Areas by the USFWS, reporting to relevant state 

agencies and the RRRA. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.4 

The newly formed RRRA should work with each water management board to 

plan, design, and implement retention, to achieve 25 percent of the retention 

goal every 5 years for their respective areas, with the goal of achieving the minimum 20 percent flow reduction for the Red River main stem over 20–25 years. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.5 

A project prioritization methodology for the use of Federal funds reflecting 

local and main stem needs and benefits should be developed by the RRRA by 2012. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.6 

The permitting process for water retention projects should be coordinated by 

the RRRA and a Federal agency liaison in the basin working with appropriate state 

and Federal agencies to help streamline the process to decrease timelines for project 

implementation, allow a one-stop permitting process, and provide general permits 

for certain projects. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.7 

NRCS and/or the states of Minnesota and North Dakota should provide $400,000 

to expand the Project Planning and Permit Evaluation demonstration 

project to the entire Red River basin through the International Water Institute as 

part of the USACE Basin Watershed Feasibility Study. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.8 

Public outreach on retention programs and a survey to determine landowner 

interest in storing water on their land should be completed in 2 years by the 

RRWMB and RRJWRD (or the RRRA) to assist in future planning for retention 

projects and determine achievable timelines and cost expectations that correspond 

to local participation. 

Recommendation for Action 2C.9 

Regarding the ongoing USACE Red River Basin-wide Feasibility Study: 

2C.9.1 The current ongoing study shall be continued with Federal 

funding at $1 million per year and corresponding $1 million non-Federal 

match. 

2C.9.2 The updating of HMS (hydrologic modeling system) of the remaining 

major watersheds should be completed by the end of 2012. This modeling will 

provide the tools necessary to identify retention projects on tributaries that 

provide local benefits and cumulatively benefit the basin. 

2C.9.3 Modeling of the remaining main stem Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System HEC–RAS reach to the Canadian border presently 

underway, including the work needed to tie all the main stem reaches together 

into one model from White Rock, South Dakota, to the Canadian border, should 

be completed by the end of 2012. 

2C.9.4 The HEC–RAS main stem model, in conjunction with the new watershed HMS models, should be finalized in such a way that they can be utilized 

to provide the basis for a RRRA ‘‘Project Prioritization Process’’ needed for 

evaluating proposed projects, their effectiveness, and downstream impacts in 

contributing to the RRBC’s flow reduction goals on the major tributaries and 

Red River main stem. 

61 

Recommendation for Action 2C.10 

NRCS, in conjunction the RRRA, shall evaluate P.L. 83–566 and other dams 

that have flood control capacity in the basin to determine the feasibility of 

restoration for the purpose of adding potential flood water retention storage, including the identification of specific structures for rehabilitation, specific strategies 

and funding necessary, and proposed timelines. NRCS shall issue its findings to the 

RRRA by September 30, 2012. Federal funding of up to $6 million is needed for the 

evaluation and an additional estimated $10–$15 million for refurbishment. 

3. Information and Tools for Maximizing Efforts Going Forward 

• The Red River Basin, a vast geographic area of three states and one Canadian 

province, has great need for cooperation across boundaries for uniform data 

and information gathering efforts, an understanding of our differences, and a 

shared vision of what needs to be accomplished. 

• The current local, state, and Federal partnership in comprehensive flood risk 

reduction strategies is disjointed and operates in a piecemeal fashion. 

• Each flood varies, creating unique issues regarding preparation and protection needs. 

• Levels of protection recommended by RRBC for the LTFS Report will provide 

the safety net needed and allow for variations in floods, weather, and forecasting. 

• Further improvements in flood forecasting such as new data sets, modeling improvements, and real time information to account for variables related 

to precipitation and temperature are needed to build upon those instituted after 

the 1997 flood. 

• Additional efforts and information are needed as a guide for the future as 

updated needs become evident. 

Recommendation for Action 3.1 

The RRBC shall, for the next 10 years, conduct an annual evaluation of flood 

mitigation progress towards the implementation of the LTFS Report Recommendations. This evaluation shall be submitted to Minnesota, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and Manitoba. 

Recommendation for Action 3.2 

Jurisdictional Multi-Boundary Coordination should be implemented wherever possible through the RRBC. 

3.2.1 The Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota governors and the 

Manitoba Premier should meet at least once every 2 years, along with the relevant legislative committee chairs of the state and provincial governments, to 

receive an update on progress towards the LTFS recommendations on 

flood reduction strategies, water quality, water quantity, and other relevant 

natural resource issues. 

3.2.2 With the assistance of RRBC, the International Legislators Forum 

among Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota legislators 

should be continued to discuss current topics, including flood risk reduction 

strategies. 

3.2.3 Minnesota should coordinate through the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the state legislature the inclusion of all subwatersheds on the 

Minnesota side as Watershed Districts (Ottertail) and membership in the 

RRWMB (Ottertail and Buffalo-Red Watershed District). 

3.2.4 Federal agencies should utilize their regional structures in innovative new ways to accommodate Red River basin hydrologic boundaries. 

3.2.5 When necessary, RRBC shall coordinate a jurisdictional meeting of 

heads of state, legislative leaders, and key agency officials to prompt dialogue 

and development of unified action on such issues. 

Recommendation for Action 3.3 

LTFS should be expanded to include the entire Red River basin: 

3.3.1 Manitoba should continue funding RRBC’s efforts to model the 20 percent flow reduction strategy in Manitoba and also continue and accelerate 

the gathering of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, at $70,000 through 

2012. 

3.3.2 South Dakota and local leadership should determine the feasibility of 

establishing watershed organizations in Roberts and Marshall counties through 

the International Legislators Forum within the next 2 years. 

62 

Recommendation for Action 3.4 

RRBC should coordinate development of a basin-wide strategy and identification 

of funding sources for improving flood forecasting during 2012 among local, 

state, provincial, and Federal agencies. 

3.4.1 The generation of relevant time appropriate data (real time rain 

and snowmelt, soil moisture, frost depth information, and other information) 

and improved modeling through a volunteer network and the development of a 

real time network shall be addressed. 

3.4.2 The feasibility of establishing an on-site decision support service 

to the region during spring and summer flood events by hosting a U.S. National 

Weather Service hydrologist in the basin shall be considered, as well as identifying a funding source for such an effort. 

Recommendation for Action 3.5 

The USGS, RRWMB, RRJWRD, and their member water boards, NDSWC, 

MNDNR, and other key stakeholders, should develop a stream gage strategy by 

2012 with associated costs and funders for the basin for the main stem Red River 

and its tributaries that will support the new hydrologic and hydraulic models that 

will provide a long term record for accurate, timely, and consistent flow data for 

model development, aid in flood reduction strategies, and include water quality modeling needs in the next 2 years. 

Recommendation for Action 3.6 

RRBC should update the LTFS Report in 2021 with the inclusion of Manitoba 

and South Dakota and shared funding from the four jurisdictions. 

4. Resources to Implement 

• Minnesota and North Dakota, cost-sharing with local, state, and Federal funds, 

should implement actions consistent with the LTFS to maintain the basin’s social, economic, and environmental welfare and protection from future large 

floods, as this investment over the next 10 years will significantly reduce the 

risk of $11–$13 billion in losses from a large flood and protect the economic 

output of the basin. 

Recommendations for Action 4.1 

The States of Minnesota and North Dakota, cost-sharing with local and Federal 

partners, should make a financial investment of about $3.54 billion over the next 

10 years to immediately address flooding in the basin with a structural approach. 

4.1 Funding in Minnesota needed for the next 10 years is $270.9 million, 

from local and state sources. 

4.2 Funding in North Dakota needed for the next 10 years is $536.4 million from local and state sources. 

4.3 Local funding at the RRWMB and RRJWRD levels should be increased 

and maintained at a two mil levy. 

See attached funding timeline table D–31 and Level of Protection Appendix D, D–3.1, p. 12 with state, local and Federal funds. 

Table D–31 Funding Timeline for Project Implementation Costs along the Red River of 

the North and Tributaries 6–7

Local Protection Projects 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

Remaining Project Costs 1st Ten Years (Starts 1 July 

2011) Remaining 

Funding 

for Future 

(After 

2021) 

Notes 

Total 

Funding 

Federal 

Funding 

NonFederal 

Funding 1

NonFederal 

Funding in 

Minnesota 

NonFederal 

Funding 

in North 

Dakota 

Red River Main Stem 

Red Farmstead and Rural Residence Ring Dikes $17.0 $3.2 $1.8 $0.4 $1.0 TBD 8

Red Minnesota Rural Area Buyouts $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 TBD 

Red North Dakota Rural Area Buyouts $7.0 $7.0 $3.6 $3.4 $0.0 

Red Stanley Township, Cass County, ND Levees $4.0 $4.0 $4.0 $0.0 

Red Breckenridge, MN $41.0 $0.7 $0.7 $0.0 

Red Oxbow, ND $0.4 $0.0 

Red Fargo/Moorhead Diversion Project $1,770.0 $1,770.0 $785.0 $985.0 $0.0 1, 6

Red Fargo, ND—Other Non-Diversion Projects $200.0 $200.0 $200.0 $0.0 

Red Moorhead, MN—Other Non-Diversion Projects $70.0 $25.0 $25.0 $0.0 

Red Oakport Twp, MN $33.0 $8.7 $8.7 $0.0 

Red/Buffalo Georgetown, MN $3.2 $3.2 $3.2 $0.0 

Red Perley, MN $2.7 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 

Red Hendrum, MN $2.5 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 

Red/Marsh Shelly, MN $3.0 $2.0 $2.0 $0.0 

Red Nielsville, MN $3.0 $1.8 $1.8 $0.0 

Red/Sand Hill Climax, MN $3.0 $2.3 $2.3 $0.0 

Red Oslo, MN $9.0 $9.0 $9.0 $0.0 

63 

Table D–31 Funding Timeline for Project Implementation Costs along the Red River of 

the North and Tributaries 6–7—Continued 

Local Protection Projects 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

Remaining Project Costs 1st Ten Years (Starts 1 July 

2011) Remaining 

Funding 

for Future 

(After 

2021) 

Notes 

Total 

Funding 

Federal 

Funding 

NonFederal 

Funding 1

NonFederal 

Funding in 

Minnesota 

NonFederal 

Funding 

in North 

Dakota 

Red Drayton, ND TBD 

Red Pembina, ND $0.1 $0.0 

Red St. Vincent, MN $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $0.0 

Tributaries 

Sheyenne/Maple/Rush Rivers (ND) 

Sheyenne Valley City, ND $60.0 $60.0 $39.0 $21.0 $0.0 

Sheyenne Fort Ransom, ND $2.8 $2.8 $0.0 

Sheyenne Lisbon, ND $10.0 $10.0 $0.0 

Sheyenne Kindred, ND $3.0 $3.0 $0.0 

Sheyenne Horace, ND $0.0 2

Sheyenne West Fargo, ND $0.0 2

Sheyenne Reile’s Acres, ND $0.0 2

Maple Enderlin, ND $0.3 $0.0 

Maple Mapleton, ND $0.1 $0.0 

Rush Amenia, ND TBD 

Sheyenne Harwood, ND $0.0 2

Sheyenne Reed Township, Cass County, ND $4.5 $4.5 $1.8 $2.7 $0.0 

Wild Rice River (MN) 

Marsh Ada, MN $9.4 $6.0 $6.0 $0.0 

Felton Ditch Felton, MN $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $0.0 

Wild Rice Buyouts $1.5 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 

Red Lake River (MN) 

Cty Ditch 1 Thief River Falls, MN $1.0 $0.0 

Red Lake Crookston, MN $40.0 $6.0 $6.0 $0.0 

Middle/Snake Rivers (MN) 

Snake Alvarado, MN $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $0.0 

Middle Argyle, MN $0.8 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 

Park River (ND) 

Park Grafton, ND $42.1 $41.0 $31.6 $9.4 $0.0 

Pembina River (ND) 

Pembina Neche, ND $3.0 $3.0 $1.9 $1.1 $0.0 

Roseau River (MN) 

Roseau Roseau, MN $40.0 $20.0 $14.0 $6.0 $0.0 

Devils Lake (ND) 

Devils Lake Devils Lake, ND (City of) $150.0 $0.0 

Devils Lake Minnewaukan, ND $10.5 $0.0 

Devils Lake Fort Totten, ND $120.0 $120.0 $120.0 $0.0 

Devils Lake Tolna Coulee—Control Structure $14.0 $13.4 $9.9 $3.5 $0.0 3

West End Outlet TBD $0.0 6

East End Outlet $85.0 $85.0 $85.0 $0.0 

Gravity Outlet $17.0 $17.0 $17.0 $0.0 

Buyouts TBD $0.0 

Raise Federal aid roads $190.0 $190.0 $190.0 $0.0 

Raise township roads TBD $0.0 

Raise railroads $97.0 $97.0 $64.7 $32.3 $0.0 4

Increase Upper Basin Storage $75.0 $75.0 $75.0 $0.0 

Subtotal—Local Protection—In United States $3,166.3 $2,812.4 $1,338.2 $985.0 $92.9 $380.4 $0.0 

Upstream Storage Projects 

Potential Upstream Storage Projects $1,463.0 $700.0 $350.0 $175.0 $175.0 $763.0 5

Other Flood Related Activities 

Pilot Projects $10.0 $5.0 $2.5 $1.3 $1.3 $5.0 

Decision Support Network $4.0 $4.0 $2.0 $1.0 $1.0 $0.15/yr 

Forecasting $2.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.15/yr 

FEMA Flood Plain Mapping with LiDAR data TBD 

Transportation Upgrades TBD 

404 Retention Permitting Coordination $1.0 $1.0 $0.5 $0.3 $0.3 $1.0 

Drainage TBD 

Conservation Program Funding TBD 

Subtotal—Other Flood Related Activities $17.0 $12.0 $6.0 $0.0 $3.0 $3.0 $6.0 

Total for United States in Red River Basin $4,646.3 $3,524.4 $1,694.2 $985.0 $270.9 $558.4 $769.0 

TBD To be determined. 

Notes: 

1The estimated amounts of the Federal and non-Federal Fargo/Moorhead LPP Diversion project total costs are based on the FargoMoorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management project Supplemental Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, April 2011. Final cost-sharing amounts between the non-Federal partners have not yet been determined. 2 Additional local protection included as a part of the Fargo-Moorhead LPP North Dakota diversion project cost listed under Fargo and Moorhead at the top of this table. 3Tolna Coulee cost includes $14 million for the control structure to prevent significant erosion in case of a natural overflow. 

4 Cost-sharing for raising railroad embankment at Devils Lake estimated to be 1⁄3 cost-shared by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, 1⁄3 by Amtrak, and 1⁄3 by the North Dakota Department of Transportation through a U.S. Department of Transportation grant. 5Federal participation in potential upstream storage projects is assumed to be available through future U.S. farm bill at approximately 

50 percent cost-sharing; however, actual Federal funding availability and cost-sharing amounts is uncertain. Also, implementation of 

projects in each state is assumed to be at comparable levels, however this will depend on project implementation schedules by each state. 

64 

6Operation and maint[enance] (O&M) costs of projects are not included in this tabulation, even though in some cases the O&M costs 

may be substantial. O&M costs are typically a non-Federal or local responsibility and should also be considered in the implementation de- cision for a project. 7 Information on specific projects at individual communities can be found on the City Assessment tables in Appendix C. 

8Funding for farmstead and rural ring dikes depend on the number of landowners requesting assistance. A rough estimate based on 

funding from recent years is included. 

Barr Factor Arc GIS 10.0. 2011–09–27 11:23 File: 

15Client\St.Paul_DistrictCorps\Work_Orders\Red_River_Basin_Wide_ 

Feasibility_Study\Maps\ReportMap\MapA-1GeneralLocationMap.mod. User 

ID: TJA. 


11507018.eps
65 

[ATTACHMENT B] 

Red River Basin of the North RCPP Watershed Project Areas 

[ATTACHMENT C] 

Red River Retention Authority Consolidated Subcommittee Reports 

March 28, 2011 

Retention Committee 

Water Management Sub-committee 

Chair: Gary Peterson 

New Farm Bill Funding[:] 

• Continue further study on the viability of tiling as a water retention practice[:] 

✔ Collaborate with the RRRA Basin Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee on water retention strategies, specifically ag water management for 

both surface and sub-surface water. 

✔ Utilize the NRCS Conservation Innovative Grants program in a pilot watershed to provide scientific findings on the potential of using tile systems to retain water in the soil profile. 

✔ Develop a cooperative agreement with USDA Agricultural Research Service, 

Cooperative Extension Service, and the land grant universities from University of Minnesota, North Dakota State University, and South Dakota State 

University to: 

» Continue research on the impact of tiling on water retention. 

» Continue to evaluate the impacts of tile drainage on water quality and wetland health. 

• Provide Red River of the North Basin financial assistance through Agricultural 

Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) and Conservation Stewardship Program 

(CSP) for bundled agricultural water management practices[:] 

✔ Nutrient management. 

✔ Pest management. 

✔ Erosion control. 

✔ Buffer and filter strips. 

✔ Water control structures on tile outlets. 

✔ Downstream retention ponds. 


11507008.eps
66 

• Based on scientific research, continue to provide low interest rate loans through 

the ‘‘Conservation Loan Program’’ administered through the Farm Service 

Agency (FSA) to implement ag water management systems through the NRCS 

(drain tile). 

• Prioritize Red River of the North Basin Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) sub-program 

financial assistance for the design and installation side water inlet structures. 

Wilkin County, Minnesota side water inlet. 

Sub-committee observations: 

Tile has potential to be used as a water management tool in the Red River Basin. 

Experts from North Dakota State University, the Energy and Environmental Research Center, the tiling industry, International Water Institute and private landowners have conducted or are working on short-term studies on this type of water 

management. The preliminary findings show a need for further evaluation and 

study. 

There appears to be the potential to gain efficiencies in water retention, protect 

public safety, improve soil health and water quality. There are some studies indicating the soil can hold more water in the spring, but these studies are not conclusive. Many of the reports on water management efficiencies are anecdotal and need 

to be further studied by the scientific community. The potential is real, but we need 

to be certain we are not solving one water resource issue while creating another. 

Retention Committee 

Permitting Sub-committee 

Chad L. Engels, Chairman 

Sub-Committee Recommendations: 

• EPA Guideline Change[:] 

» EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines, set out in 40 CFR section 230 (LEDPA)— 

404(b)(1) states a permit will not be issued ‘‘if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the 

aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant 

adverse environmental consequences.’’ Our subcommittee has identified 

LEDPA as a significant obstacle to building retention projects in terms of 

time and money. A solution would be to replace The Least Environmental 

Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) requirement with a simple environmental mitigation requirement for the proposed project. 

• SAMP[:] 


11507009.eps
67 

» EPA 404 Nationwide Permit/Regional Permit—Currently, retention 

projects must be permitted as individual projects. Our subcommittee has 

learned that many categories of projects are permitted under what are called 

‘‘Nationwide Permits’’ or ‘‘Regional permits’’. These permit categories speed 

the process significantly by having a common ‘‘Purpose and Need’’ and ‘‘Description of Proposed Alternatives and No Action Alternative’’ in the EIS requirements for flood retention projects covered by this national or regional 

permit. Therefore, our subcommittee will likely recommend that a Nationwide 

Permit (preferable) or Regional General Permit (second choice) be developed 

for three categories of retention projects in the Red River of the North Watershed. These project categories include Off-Channel projects like North Ottawa, dry mainstem projects like the Maple River Dam, and wetland retention projects that temporarily store water above the delineated wetland 

boundary. 

» Consistency—The USACE should establish an interagency agreement 

whereby one office assumes regulatory control of retention projects within the 

entire Red River of the North Watershed. 

» Funding—The Federal Government should fund a USACE regulatory position dedicated solely to processing Federal permits for retention projects in 

the Red River of the North Watershed. 

» Involvement—The USACE should be a committed, active, and involved participant in the ‘‘Flood Damage Reduction Work Group—Watershed District 

Project Teams’’ process for developing retention projects in Minnesota. Additionally, the USACE should be involved at the ground level, if requested, for 

retention projects developed in North Dakota and South Dakota. 

• Corps Rule 40 CFR Change[:] 

» NEPA Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Comment Period— 

would recommend that Corps rules be changed so that under no circumstances can the three comment periods required under an EIS be extended beyond 30 days for the Notice of Intent, 45 days for the Draft EIS, 

and 30 days for the Final EIS. 

Retention Committee 

Easement Sub-committee 

Chair: Jon Roeschlein 

Farm Bill Changes[:] 

• 514.13—Ineligible Landowners—We recommend that Watershed Districts, 

Water Resource Districts, and the Red River Retention Authority in the Red 

River of the North Basin be eligible to enroll lands into the WRP. This provision 

would expedite the implementation of flood water retention projects. 

• 514.14—Land Eligibility—It is recommended that all hydric soils including 

non-drained retention areas located in the Red River of the North Basin are eligible lands for the WRP. 

[•] 514.14d—Consideration should be given to add a new focus area like that 

done for the Devils Lake area. Potential language: 

Section 1237, Wetlands Reserve Program 

(c) Eligibility. 

Add (2)(C) Other land of an owner where the Secretary determines 

wetland functions and values can be established on such land. 

• 514.20 Ranking Criteria—It is a recommendation of this committee that the 

Red River Retention Authority in cooperation with the three State Conservationists develop WRP ranking criteria specific to the Red River of the North 

Basin. 

68 

Spring 2010 North Ottawa Impoundment. 

• 514.41b—Definition of Restoration—We have come to agreement on shortterm definition that we are restoring the value and function of wetland complexes that have been degraded since settlement of the area. Long-term, there 

is a need to provide clarification that allows for the establishment of wetlands 

and wetland complexes that provide the same or better functions and values as 

enhanced, rehabilitated or restored wetland functions and values. If managed 

properly, the functions and values should far exceed those of most naturally occurring wetlands and those wetlands that are restored but not managed. 

Structure C North Ottawa Impoundment. 

• WRP Acreage Cap—State Conservationists be allowed to waive the County 

Cropland Reenrollment limitations in the Red River of the North Basin for purpose of water retention projects. Also suggest a separate acreage limit for WRP 

and CRP. [(]i.e., CRP 25%, WRP 25%[)]. 

FSA Regulation change[:] 

• Buffer widths—Eligible buffer strip widths should be increased to fully encompass the 100 year floodplain adjacent to the channel or the floodway adjacent 

to the channel or up to 1,000′. 

• CRP Acreage Cap—State Executive Director be allowed to waive the County 

Cropland Reenrollment limitations in the Red River of the North Basin for purpose of water retention projects. Also suggest a separate acreage limit for CRP 

and WRP. i.e., CRP 25%, WRP 25%. 

• Vegetation Management—There should be provisions added where the State 

Executive Director could waive the payment reduction on CRP and CCRP for 

biofuels harvesting or haying or grazing when part of an approved management 

plan. It does not make sense to use burning as the only viable option for vegetative management on these sites targeted for water retention projects and penalize the landowner for more reasonable and practical management options. 


11507010.eps 11507011.eps
69 

NRCS Policy change or farm bill change? 

• Multiple Easement Categories—It is recommended the EWP–FPE allow for 

continued cropping of portions of the easement under an approved conservation 

management plan. 

• Enhancement—It is recommended that EWP–FPE include enhancement and 

allow retention in addition to restoration of the floodplain. 

Retention Committee 

Farm Bill Programs Sub-committee 

Chair: Rob Sando 

NRCS Policy Changes[:] 

• Encourage sidewater inlets/outlets as retention features in EQIP/AWEP 

✔ Change NRCS ranking criteria with ‘‘Encourage and Prioritize’’, to emphasize the installation and operation of sidewater inlets/outlets with traps as 

higher priority in the ranking process. 

✔ Encourage and emphasis Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) and Natural Resource Enhancement (NRE) in NRCS ranking process. 

✔ Encourage landowners through local EQIP/AWEP applications to refrain 

from draining water on property with traps on sidewater inlets/outlets until 

the water in the drain or stream recedes thus resulting in a higher score on 

their eligibility status. This could be done by having landowners sign an 

agreement resulting in a higher NRCS ranking score. 

Minnesota Red River Valley side water inlets. 

New Farm Bill Funding[:] 

✔ Increase the amount of funding for Technical Service Providers in the Red 

River of the North Basin (practice design, application and checkout). 

✔ Establish FEMA or public private partnership, or USDA Rural Development 

to be used for protection of small agricultural rural community (population less 

than 3,000) ring dike (50 percent to total project costs). 

✔ Establish FEMA or public private partnership, or USDA Rural Development 

to be used for culvert sizing projects that provide for distributed flood water retention in targeted/prioritized areas as part of a sub-watershed plan. This would 

provide landowner incentives for keeping the water where it lands as part of 

the goal of reducing downstream flood peaks. 

✔ Provide AWEP funding to construct levees and dikes to manage 10 year frequency for overland flooding on agricultural land. 

✔ Increase EQIP/AWEP funding for forestry practices. 

✔ Utilize forestry management products and activities for excess moisture. 

✔ Biomass Crop Assistance practice. 

✔ No Federal cost-share or incentive payment should exceed 75% of the cost of 

installation 

P.L. 83–566 and EWP Change[:] 

✔ Where it is not practical for technical reasons to construct ring dikes for a 

farmstead provide P.L. 83–566 and Emergency Watershed Protection Program 


11507012.eps
70 

funds for relocation or buy out of some or all of the farmstead at 50 percent 

cost-share. 

✔ No Federal cost-share or incentive payment should exceed 75% of the cost 

ofinstallation. 

Retention Committee 

P.L. 83–566 Sub-committee 

Chair: Dan Money 

Committee Recommendations: 

• Increase watershed size limit from 250,000 acres to 1,000,000 acres, and use 

only the upstream contributing area to determine eligible size, not any downstream areas. 

• Increase the single site storage volume from 12,500 acre-feet to 75,000 acrefeet. 

• Increase the total project storage volume from 25,000 acre-feet to 250,000 

acre-feet. 

• Increase the eligible construction cost-share from 0 percent to 75 percent 

Federal cost-share for natural resource enhancements. 

• Add language to alter the eligible technical assistance cost-share to make technical assistance costs associated with natural resource enhancement portions of 

the project eligible for 75 percent cost-share. 

• Add language to limit the total project sponsor cost-share (non-Federal) to 

25 percent. Also, amortize the future expected operations-maintenance-repairreplacement-rehabilitation costs to a present value and allow the local sponsor 

to use this obligation towards the max of 25 percent cost-share on initial construction. 

• Increase project cost/timing approval by Congress requirement from 

projects that exceed $5 million and/or 4,000 acre-feet to: 

(1) allow approval by the NRCS State Conservationist for projects up to $25 

million (or 25,000 acre-feet), and 

(2) allow approval by the NRCS Chief for projects up to $50 million (or 50,000 

acre-feet). Approval by Congress would be required for projects over $50 

million/50,000 acre-feet. 

• Eliminate the requirement under economic and environmental principles 

and guidelines for water resources implementation studies for individual 

benefit to cost ratio calculations on each individual project and instead allow 

flood control projects to be based upon an overall basin plan. 

• Designate the Red River Retention Authority as the unit of government who 

will develop the benefit to cost ratio to be used collectively for all projects 

within the Red River of the North basin. Projects that fall under the basin plan 

will not need to meet an individual cost benefit ratio criteria, but will need to 

meet the basin cost benefit criteria. 

• Under technical services contracting, issue a Request for Proposals for a 

multiple award of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for planning, 

design, and implementation of flood control planning focused specifically for the 

Red River of the North Basin. 

• Under dam rehabilitation, utilize Section 313 of Public Law 106–472 to provide dedicated funding for rehabilitation projects in the Red River Basin where 

the primary purpose is the development of gated flood storage. The intent is to 

retrofit existing P.L. 83–566 projects that have little or no storage to be able 

to build into them a storage component where possible. 

71 

Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District 

P.L. 83–566 Off Channel Floodwater Impoundment Site. 

P.L. 83–566 Diversion Channel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Finney. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Burns, you are exactly right about the droughts of the 1950s. 

Granted, I was not around at the time, but the effect in the Southwest, Oklahoma and Texas, when it broke, starting in 1957, 1958, 

and 1959, the deluge was just amazing, according to records and 


11507013.eps 11507014.eps
72 

my parents’ accounts. It did drive forth the process to accelerate 

this. 

First, let me turn to Mr. Emmons for a question. 

You are not just a conservation activist. You are an all-around 

conservation-focused farmer. Expand for a moment, Jimmy, about 

how all this intertwines together, good stewardship of the soil, of 

the water retention structures, making these investments, the environment, if you would for just a bit. 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes. It is a very intricate partnership from local 

producers, from there downstream. We have to worry about catching the first raindrop, get it in the soil. We have to worry about 

coming into the small watersheds, the release out of that, down 

through there. 

It is an intricate system of how we control the water when it 

comes. Where it is range management, Mr. Bramblett talked about 

cover crop systems above streams, all that helps with water quality 

as it moves down into the watersheds. 

But we still have to have those watersheds there to catch the 

heavy rainfalls like we were just talking about and also releasing 

that slowly out of that 10 day interval there. And so it takes a lot 

of O&M, operation and management, inspections on the dams to 

make sure that they are very functional. 

The CHAIRMAN. And it is worth reinforcing the point that the 

protection is provided from that let down pipe all the way to the 

ocean. 

Mr. EMMONS. Oh, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is not just on the farm or the neighbor down 

the road or the county road. It is all the way to the Atlantic if you 

live in Oklahoma, or it is all the way to the Pacific if you are on 

the west side of the Rocky Range. 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes. What happens on my farm affects clear downstream to the ocean. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peterson, you have been involved in the 

process a good long time, clearly. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you have observed and been a big part of 

the progress that we have made. There is always more to do. Expand for a moment on that. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, as Mr. Bramblett told you, he told you a little bit about the backlog and the things they are facing in NRCS. 

I happen to believe Public Law 83–566 in these watershed programs is one of the best tools ever invented that not only do conservation work on the land, but flood management, flood damage 

reduction work. And it is just unlimited how many benefits we can 

get in this country from installing watershed kinds of activities 

throughout the United States. 

And as we mentioned, in Ranking Member Fudge’s state, they 

are even doing a lot of land treatment projects now that don’t have 

structures there, but we are addressing all those land treatment 

conservation measures. 

It is unlimited how much we could accomplish if we had the ability to do so. And that ability is somewhat limited not just by funding, but by the people available to do the work. But to me this is 

one of the best authorities we have ever had. 

73 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burns, in your community where the programs have been successfully implemented, do the citizens understand and appreciate that? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, they do. But, citizens downstream 

probably are better served than the local citizens. Now it is 348 

miles from my home to the Gulf of Mexico, and the downstream 

partners, and I call them partners because they are downstream of 

me, benefits greatly. 

The Tarrant Regional Water District is a partner of ours in the 

maintenance of our structures and land treatments, and that is incredibly beneficial to them. They say that a penny invested saves 

them a dollar. They get a hundred-fold on the investments they put 

in my county. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emmons and I come from a community that 

was the center of the abyss of the Great Depression and the 

drought of the 1930s. And this is a legacy issue, not just a current 

issue, but a legacy issue, for both of us, in that we had an activist 

by the name of Red Males, my family’s banker from 1924 until 

1989, who was a big proponent after the 1934 flood in helping drive 

Members of Congress in Oklahoma in this direction. 

It is important, right, Jimmy, that we continue to work on that 

great legacy laid down by our predecessors? 

Mr. EMMONS. Oh, it is very important. I mean, that was an unprecedented flood back then and lots of loss of life. And as I allude 

to, in my family farm, I mean, it sheared off the top soil as deep 

as granddad had plowed it, and that is hard, hard to replace. 

But it also affects water quality downstream. And that is what 

you really need to think about in legacy here is, like you said, all 

the partners from my farm downstream that were affected by what 

we do there on my farm. 

So, yes, it is very, very important that we continue that legacy 

to protect our citizens, protect our roadways, and protect our soil. 

The CHAIRMAN. And to share these accomplishments with the 

country as a whole, the opportunities that prevail. 

Mr. EMMONS. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, my time has expired. 

I turn to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you all for your testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. FUDGE. The Trump Administration budget does not request 

any funding for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program for 

Fiscal Year 2018 citing that maintenance, repair, and operation of 

these dams are the responsibility of local project sponsors. 

Mr. Emmons, you mentioned farm sense in your testimony. 

Please speak to the importance of this federally assisted but locally 

planned and implemented program. 

Mr. EMMONS. Well, the farm sense part of it, it is very important 

that we protect these assets. We are challenged in Oklahoma with 

reduced budgets too where we have a lot of conservation districts 

now that either are not staffed or have a part-time staff, and we 

are trying to share with other districts to get people out on the 

ground to physically inspect these dams and do regular maintenance on them. 

74 

So it is very challenging. But still, the farm sense side of it tells 

me that we must protect these investments and protect our people, 

our livestock, our communities, and our roads and infrastructure 

down through that. Without that, then we have nothing. 

And Mr. Burns talked about how the protection of these watersheds has greatly increased from washing out lots of different 

structures in 1950 to a very few. That tells us that the system is 

working, but that doesn’t mean that we need to ignore the system, 

because we have to maintain it. Whether it is a house or a dam, 

it has to have regular maintenance, and it has to be updated. 

From the pipes that go through the structures that could deteriorate and crack, to the embankments to the spillways, all has to be 

maintained. And that takes people on the ground. And it is very 

challenging. A lot of these conservation districts have reduced 

budgets. 

You talked about the Federal budget being reduced. That is a 

fact that we can’t give up. We must stress the importance of that, 

how important it is to manage the investment. We would never in 

farming country put that kind of investment out and ignore it. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Burns and Mr. Peterson, if you could just quickly say what 

you believe the effect on your communities and our nation would 

be if we do not continue to fund these programs. 

Mr. BURNS. Could I—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Go ahead. 

Mr. BURNS. I was very apprehensive coming up here. It made me 

very nervous to do this. And I was thinking about it on the way 

up here, driving up the interstate, that this system is like an interstate. There is local investment, but I can’t invest in an interstate 

highway all the way to D.C. with local tax dollars even though I 

need it. 

If that makes sense to you, it gives you a little analogy about 

this. I can’t afford the investment all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. 

But the benefits are there, and it is important to keep that up. 

Mr. PETERSON. I would like to make a comment also, and I appreciate that question. I am probably going to demonstrate to many 

in the room that I am not a good economist, although I have 

worked with them all my life. 

But the fact of the matter is, when I talked about 2,100 watershed projects throughout the nation and the $2.3 billion of average 

annual benefit, if you are a strict economist, I have worked with 

many who would say: Well, those are all regional projects, that 

only the people in that region need to fund them and work with 

them, but when you add all of those up that have been constructed 

throughout the United States, think of the national benefit. And 

that is the way I look at it. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full Committee 

for 5 minutes, Mr. Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Finney, after the discussion I had with Mr. Bramblett, you 

folks, the Retention Authority, did your people raise these issues 

with NRCS? 

75 

Mr. FINNEY. Yes, sir, we have. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. And they told you that we had to 

change the law. Is that what they—— 

Mr. FINNEY. Exactly. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. They didn’t have any flexibility on 

the cost-benefit without—— 

Mr. FINNEY. Not really. The cost-benefit thing has been kind of 

a problem to us in the basin specifically because we have a plan 

that is put forward that is a comprehensive plan of bringing together several of these projects to alleviate the total flooding on the 

main stem of the Red River. 

And for those of you that are not familiar with the Red River, 

we are one of the very few that flows to the north. We thaw out 

from the south to the north. Our river ends up eventually in the 

Hudson’s Bay. 

That kind of tells you what kind of a problem we have. Downstream, 200 miles from us, the spring thaw occurs, and us poor 

schleps up on the Canadian border are sitting there froze up for 

the next 3 weeks. It gets to be kind of a problem. 

That is what we are looking for, this comprehensive approach to 

water management, these upstream retention structures. And the 

cost-benefit, of course, is when you do each individual little area, 

we aren’t able to meet the criteria established by the Federals. It 

doesn’t mean that we are going to discontinue our efforts to move 

forward. We will try to use the P.L. 83–566 as best as we can. But 

we will continue moving forward with both local and state money. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I think it is fair to say that the 

250,000 acre limitation is really out of date. It hasn’t been changed 

since the program was created. 

Mr. FINNEY. In our mind it is, Mr. Peterson. The main reason is 

we live in a very flat river valley, up from 12 miles to 250 miles 

wide, and there are only so many prime sites that we can use to 

store these kinds of projects. 

P.L. 83–566 limits us into the fact that, like I said, we have to 

pick off the plums. We want to use the best that we can. If we 

could get a little more capacity or if we could, make these kinds 

of things work, it would be better off for us. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. And just for our Members, one of 

our big problems we have had is dealing with the Corps and trying 

to get permits and that bogged us down. But this fight goes back 

to the Corps not wanting us to be doing this. They want to run all 

of these projects. And that is part of the reason why we don’t get 

an increase in the acreage size. 

But if you want to make sure that the project costs three or four 

times what it should, then put the Corps of Engineers in charge, 

and you will accomplish it. 

I don’t know what we do to simplify this system. But as I said 

earlier, we are wasting a lot of money because we could be doing 

stuff out there. And it is not just the Corps. We have had trouble 

with the local DNR not approving things. It is just one thing after 

another. 

But one of the things, I have this list here, so I don’t know what 

you are doing in Oklahoma, Mr. Chairman, but according to this 

list, you have 987 P.L. 83–566 projects, and we only have 37 in 

76 

Minnesota. Either you are doing really good, or we are doing really 

bad. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, if you lived through the Great 

Depression and drought from the 1930s, you would do everything 

you could to hold the water and soil in place. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I don’t know if any of you folks that 

have been around this for a while, but can you explain to me why 

Iowa has 1,066, Missouri has 1,148, Oklahoma has 987, Texas, 697, 

and then these other states have 16 or 35? What is going on here? 

Why is that occurring? 

Mr. BURNS. It is due to catastrophic weather events, likely. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The what? 

Mr. BURNS. The likelihood of catastrophic weather events in 

those locales. That is what I attribute it to. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think there is more to it than that, though. It 

is local leadership that is part of it, because local leaders had to 

recognize the program could assist them, and they reached out and 

adopted it. Many states still haven’t. 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes. It is locally-led conservation, the passionate 

from-the-heart people that puts it in place and tries to protect their 

soil and their water. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, we are hoping to catch up 

with you guys. That is our goal. 

Right, John. 

Mr. FINNEY. That is right. 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to share the 

good news with everybody. Absolutely. Let’s get after it. 

With that, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the panel for your comments and being here today 

to talk about these issues. 

I represent the 12th District of Georgia, and I have heard it said 

many times by our state leaders, of course, we have water wars 

with other states. But Georgia does not have a water problem. We 

get 51′′ of annual rainfall a year. We have a water management 

problem in Georgia, which is the subject that we are talking about 

today. 

But then we do have some dry times in Georgia. At least all of 

our corn is irrigated, or it better be. And, of course, they are sucking that water out of those caverns, and then that causes problems 

downstream. 

Nobody wants to solve this issue more than our folks in Georgia 

and our neighboring states. 

In the Corps, we have found that is an issue. But going back, you 

have the Federal Government and then you have all our state governments. And somehow there seems to be some problem working 

together. 

Could you elaborate, anybody on the panel, as far as how in the 

world we could fix that and allow the Federal Government to do 

its role in conjunction with the state and local? As we said, this is 

a local problem, particularly the maintenance of these properties. 

77 

Mr. Emmons, could you elaborate on that? 

Mr. EMMONS. Well, that is not an easy problem. You would think 

that people could come together for the common good. We have 

seen that challenging in the past. We have been blessed that we 

had some Federal dollars for rehab in Oklahoma, thanks to Congressman Lucas, in the 2014 Farm Bill. The big challenge is state 

matching funds of that to get the dams in rehab. 

With state budgets shrinking, that becomes very, very hard. We 

were very blessed this year that we did get some increase in dollars 

for that rehab. It was a very hard-fought battle to get that money 

in a $900+ million deficit budget. It took a lot of people from our 

districts working at the state capital to get that done. And we 

think this is just the beginning. We think that will grow. 

But it really comes back down to locally-led and getting the people that vote out to speak to the ones that are making the decisions 

and share our passion about how we go about protecting their lives. 

It was talked about earlier, when people build below these structures without even thinking. And then in 2015, we had a flood in 

a town south of me, Elk City. We were very fortunate that day to 

be able to fly with the National Watershed Coalition in a helicopter. And the significant flooding the day after that where these 

dams were flowing out the spillways, we had some issues there 

that those dams need to be rehabbed because they are past their 

life expectancy. 

To answer your question is we have to work with our legislators 

and get the people that vote, that care, to realize the importance 

of these structures and the land practices. 

It is not all about the structures. You talked about in Georgia, 

it is about managing the land above that, whether it be range management, like myself, I do a lot in cover crop practices. And it is 

very important that we manage that rainfall when it comes to infiltrate. I would love to have 50′′+ in western Oklahoma. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Right. Yes. The Corps’ answer to that flood 

problem is they always lower our lakes in the wintertime. But that 

is very disturbing for our recreational users. I mean, what are your 

thoughts on that as far as management goes? Any other thoughts 

from the other members of the panel about what I brought up as 

far as working together? 

Mr. PETERSON. Could I make a comment on the difference in philosophy, maybe, between the Corps and NRCS? I respect the Corps 

quite a bit. They are marvelous technicians. They do what they feel 

like they are directed to do. 

But there is a book that I would recommend for your late-night 

reading called, Big Dam Foolishness written by a gentleman named 

Elmer Peterson from Oklahoma. It talks about the difference in 

philosophies and how one program went one way and one went another. It is a marvelous book on the background and philosophies 

between the two agencies. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. Good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield to for me for a moment? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is an additional issue to consider. The actual structures, when they are on a farm, really doesn’t add to the 

78 

quality of life for the landowner. Only one in 30, 40, maybe 50 actually ever hold, in these typical structures, enough water to be 

called a fishing hole. Otherwise they are dry-weather ponds. 

You have this earthen structure. You have changed the lay of the 

land. The landowner is helping his or her neighbors downstream. 

They really don’t gain that much from it. From them, it is a sense 

of being a part of the common good to start with, and then it cascades down. 

These structures were never condemned. The properties were allowed to be constructed after easements were signed, permission 

given by landowners dating back to the 1940s. 

Mr. ALLEN. We are talking about dry ponds here? 

The CHAIRMAN. That is basically most of the structures in my 

core area. 

Mr. ALLEN. When we have a flood in these dry ponds, then we 

are washing out these dams? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. No. The upstream flood control dams are a 

series of small dams. When you have a flood, each of the dams 

catches the water that comes from above it. 

As the Deputy Chief pointed out earlier, the 10 day goal is then 

to meter the water out. They act as a shock absorber. Instead of 

this deluge going down the creek and down the river and building, 

they slow it down, they meter it out so it is manageable within the 

existing stream banks, which protects wildlife, too, by the way, as 

well as domesticated livestock. 

Mr. ALLEN. The subject we are talking about here today is the 

Federal Government actually doing what it is supposed to be doing 

as far as that relief downstream. 

The CHAIRMAN. How the system has worked is why we have this 

match between local entities and the Federal Government, because 

the local entities can’t pay for it. And typically it wouldn’t benefit 

them, the protection given from 3 miles below the dam all the way 

to the Gulf of Mexico. But by the Federal Government participating, we set up these networks that protect everybody below the 

stream. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. In a 100 year targeted goal. 

Mr. ALLEN. You all want to comment on that? 

Mr. BURNS. Eighty-five of my structures are usually between 1 

acre and 5 acres. They do retain some water, and most of the time 

if does last all summer. Prior to 2015, we had another 6 or 7 years 

of drought, and most of those were dry. The landowner nor any of 

the locals that like to fish there were benefiting at all. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I hope we can get this figured out, and I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say I have been working with conservation districts now for 20+ years, and it has been such a pleasure. And it 

is really good to have some folks here, and I want to compliment 

the Chairman on having folks who have real-life experience in this 

stuff, because it is hard to understand out there. And especially 

bringing in special interest people in here. No thanks. I like people 

79 

from rural America that know what their land is all about. This 

Committee is one of those committees where we all share these 

types of common values. 

But if we were going to look at rural America as we should, as 

our breadbasket, our natural resources, where they all come from, 

where our power plants are, how we are going to survive as a society, that is the bedrock, whether it is a rural America or Native 

American reservations, across that whole spectrum. 

But life is different out there from a tax standpoint. Life is different out there as far as being able to find cooperation and be able 

to build these types of structures without Federal help. And it is 

also different in maintaining them over time. And so that is why 

this partnership is so important. 

And if we don’t do that, it is actually a waste of the prior expenditures that we have put into it. And fiscally, that doesn’t make 

much sense at all to me. And it is a legacy issue. We did build 

these. Whether there are 5,000 of them out there that have to have 

work on them, it is our responsibility to work with partners to get 

that done. And I am hoping as we go through the farm bill or 

through the budget process, that we are going to be able to get this 

issue away from the zero number into somewhere much more 

meaningful to get the work done. 

But we also have to take into account the ongoing activities in 

the local area. What we are building downstream from these areas, 

what climate is or isn’t doing to the process, and making sure 

that—I don’t even know if the assessment of the dams right now 

takes into account the differences in climate from 20 years ago. 

But what happens if we don’t do something? The impacts to rural 

America are tremendous, just tremendous. We have increased flood 

risk. We have a public health risk. I mean, health and safety, 

deaths, American citizens, loss of economic potential, increased 

FEMA floodplains, impact on family investments, the lack of maintenance of irrigation districts, irrigation into canals, the loss of 

water resources, water quality. You could go on and on and on. 

So in these couple of minutes that are remaining, I would like 

to hear from you about how you feel about these types of losses and 

what you feel we can do about them to make sure we go in the 

right direction here. 

Mr. EMMONS. Well, my work that I have done with land and 

range management is, if you look at the Mississippi River flow 

since the very first monitoring that was done in the Mississippi, it 

was very consistent back before we plowed the prairie up. There 

were some ups, a little downs, but it was pretty flat. As the native 

prairie started being tilled up and put in production, we started 

seeing bigger swings. And the more we tilled, the worse that got, 

because it gets back to the point Mr. Bramblett brought up a while 

ago about organic matter in the soil. We can’t capture the water 

in the soil as that organic matter was depleted. 

I think that it makes a lot of good sense that we start putting 

more land management practice with the cover crops and range 

management to get our organic built back up so that for every one 

percent we can catch 27,500 gallons of water per acre. 

Now, if you do the math, and I have done a presentation on this, 

in the Mississippi Delta flow region, if we would increase our infilVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN
80 

tration rates at 1⁄2′′, that is 83 days of the water that goes over Niagara Falls. Get it in the soil, keep it in the soil, and that will lessen the effect downstream. 

Mr. O’HALLERAN. I was just down in Galveston over the weekend 

at the commissioning of the USS Gabrielle Giffords. And I was 

looking at the beach. And the Congressman from Texas tells me, 

he says: ‘‘Well, the water changes color down further south in 

Texas because up here we have all the sediment coming out of the 

Mississippi River, still down in Galveston. It is still changing color. 

And it gets blue and green further south.’’ 

I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognized the gentleman from Mississippi for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, witnesses, for being here. I apologize for walking 

out not hearing your testimony, but we have an Armed Services 

hearing that is going on simultaneously. 

Mr. Peterson, our witnesses today have all successfully made the 

case for the economic benefits of flood control dams. However, the 

conservation value remains in how it protects and in some cases 

expands our resources. In addition to the traditional watershed 

programs, how has RCPP furthered the progress on watershed 

issues? 

Mr. PETERSON. I must admit, I am not the expert on RCPP. I do 

know about the program, and my conservation district is not using 

it necessarily right now. But if any program or program dollars are 

able to put some watershed protection on the ground, I am certainly supportive of that. But maybe one of my colleagues up here 

has more experience with RCPP directly. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. 

And I would open that to any of you who have a comment. 

Mr. BURNS. My own local water control improvement district and 

soil and water conservation district are basically all volunteers. It 

is very tough to get through that process without a grant writer. 

It is not that it is unavailable to us, but we have yet to take advantage of it because it adds a small amount of complication to the 

process that we haven’t experienced in decades past. But it is still 

a good program, and it works well on a region-wide basis. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Emmons, like you, the people of Mississippi understand 

the value of the stewardship of the land. And conservation programs and watershed infrastructure really are vital to many of my 

constituents. 

As someone who has engaged in some innovative practices over 

the year, what recommendations do you have for this Committee 

when addressing watershed-wide issues? 

Mr. EMMONS. Well, like I stated earlier, we have to put some 

more practices on the ground above the structures to infiltrate that 

water, increase the organic matter. But it still comes down to the 

local people in the conservation districts there managing that resource that we put out there in those structures and ensuring that 

they work right. But it is still very important that we manage that 

land above them and below them so that we can slow that water. 

81 

Ranking Member Fudge talked about the water quality downstream that will be greatly enhanced if we can do that. 

Mr. KELLY. And I would just say that the watershed programs 

do so much for the local communities, many of the people who don’t 

even realize the value that it gets for them. 

I thank all you gentlemen for what you have done in this program. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and for the panelists for traveling here today. 

Mr. Peterson, on the issue, I hear it from farmers and ranchers 

back home, with NRCS. And people are pretty happy overall, but 

the real frustration is with implementation of the projects. The actual folks who get out on the ground and do the engineering and 

the staff work needed out in the field is what I hear mostly about. 

That was mentioned early on in your testimony. 

Aside from budgets, what structural change do you think would 

be helpful to NRCS’ program to stock it with the right people who 

can do more—well, I won’t prejudice the question. What do you 

think needs to be done to move the projects along faster and have 

that be a stronger focus perhaps, please? 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, the answer to that is fairly easy as far as 

I am concerned, and that is stop cutting professional staff in the 

agency. If you go back to the agency’s highest employment time, it 

was probably in the 1970s with 18,000 people. Now they are down 

around 10,500 people with far more program responsibilities than 

they used to have. And here we are trying to implement a lot of 

these programs that require competent professional staff. The 

agency, from the time I left it 25 years ago until today, has lost 

a great deal of the people that we need to manage these programs 

properly, and I would just like to see that stopped. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay, so no more cuts. But what is the ratio of 

people that are able to actually implement the projects versus those 

that are—— 

Mr. PETERSON. That question probably would have been better 

asked of Mr. Bramblett when he was here, because he had all the 

current information on projects in the backlog. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. We ran out of minutes on that, as it goes up 

here. 

Anybody else on the panel wish to touch on that. 

Mr. PETERSON. I can touch on one fact, that the permitting process is quite lengthy, even though there is a section 404 process, and 

there are some practices that are put on the ground that require 

mitigation. And I believe—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Now, this is mitigation for doing things that are 

positive environmentally. 

Mr. PETERSON. Exactly. And these projects should be receiving 

the credits for the mitigation rather than having to give them, if 

that makes sense, because it is—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you feel it is outside of the law where there 

are clear exemptions for a lot of agriculture, other activities that 

82 

were pretty clear as Congress wrote them, and then they have been 

overtaken by interpretations that are—— 

Mr. PETERSON. I believe you are correct. 

Mr. LAMALFA. What do you think we should be doing about that? 

Mr. PETERSON. Streamline it in some way. But I am sorry, I 

don’t have the specific answers for you. But like I say, that permitting process for these small structures needs to be—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Kind of frustrating now, because it is permitting 

the slowing down of things that are positive environmentally given 

that. 

Mr. BURNS. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Win-win, isn’t it? 

Anybody else on the panel. 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes. I mean, talking about your original question 

and to that question, we see reduced staffing at NRCS. And they 

have several programs, the EQIP Program, CSP Program, all are 

very cumbersome. CSP has just come through another revised step, 

requires more time for the local NRCS. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Where did that step come from? 

Mr. EMMONS. Upstream. It came from here. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. We are here to help, right? 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes. As these programs have become more cumbersome and more time-consuming for that local conservation that 

is less time that he has to come out and help us with the structures 

for our land practices. Very good programs, very good programs, 

but very cumbersome. And with RCPP, that is another example, a 

very good program that, once you get it on the ground you can do 

great things, but it is very cumbersome to get it implemented. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, we need checks and balances so you don’t 

do rampant projects without proper review. But I guess we need 

help understanding here or attacking the core problem of when is 

too much permitting, where is the line between just enough permitting, just enough review, and this cumbersome business you are 

talking about here, because, yes, you want to have guidelines, but 

you also want the rubber to meet the road in getting projects done. 

Mr. BURNS. Probably some bracketing as far as acreage covered 

or size of the structure and then possibly some exemption to a portion of that, if it meets some criteria. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. 

Mr. EMMONS. And you have to have some trust that the local 

people that own the land have the greatest passion for the land. 

Don’t make it so hard that we can’t implement the practices. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I am a little over time here, but do you find that 

the folks on the ground at NRCS know what to do, but they are 

getting again their regional office or D.C. a signal that frustrates 

them? Is that pretty common? 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. That is very common. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. And anymore follow-up you would like to send anybody or me, we would love to 

have that and be able to attack this. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

83 

The chair now turns to a fellow Subcommittee Chairman on the 

House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Thank you to all the members of the panel for being here, bringing your experience and expertise on important issues of small watersheds. 

I have a question I just want to throw out in general to all four 

of you, if you would feel inclined to respond. Basically, infrastructure and job creation typically go hand in hand. Has that been the 

case with what we have been able to stimulate or facilitate with 

Public Law 83–566? 

Mr. EMMONS. Yes, I would start with that. We are in Dewey 

County on our fourth rehabilitation project. There are three of 

those dams within eyesight of my house. Yes, we saw that the 

amount of dollars that turns over in the local community is very 

significant. We have contractors come in, they had lodging, they 

buy fuel, they buy food. Plus, all the technical staff that puts that 

project together prior to construction. 

And then afterwards, before the district takes back over, NRCS 

does some more on-the-ground assessments to make sure everything is just right before the district takes back over. 

We have seen a great number of dollars influx into the local communities when we are doing them rehab projects. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Any other of the gentlemen have experience with that? 

Mr. BURNS. We see the same benefits. Some local contractors get 

bids on these projects when there are rehabilitation projects or 

other projects that are emergency watershed protection where 

there is some lake by it or some kind of damage to the dam that 

is contracted out. And we also use some local resources for gabion 

stone and things like that that support other businesses. There is 

a good trickle down for that that are utilized in the communities. 

Mr. BURNS. I am sure the NRCS today can tell you about how 

many jobs are created with these construction projects that they 

have. I know in my day we could do that. We made some estimates 

of that. But I can tell you that there is job creation as a result of 

this construction. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. 

Mr. Finney, RCPP was one of the largest changes in the conservation title in the last farm bill. It was designed to address conservation concerns on a landscape level. Now that it has been fully 

implemented, how has it worked in conjunction with Public Law 

83–566 and the rehab program? 

Mr. FINNEY. I can’t exactly speak to the rehab program. But the 

planning that we are doing with the P.L. 83–566, the RCPP has 

allowed development of conservation practices upstream of our proposed projects as well as protecting the local drainage systems. We 

have been able to implement these kinds of practices to avoid soil 

erosion as well wind erosion and also protect the waters coming 

down from upstream to downstream into our retention projects. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen yields back. 

84 

Before we adjourn, the chair would like to thank the second 

panel for your insights and real-world experiences. Just as in our 

first panel, it has been very insightful in every way. 

And with that, I would turn to the Ranking Member to make any 

closing comments that she would make. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for this hearing today. 

I thank you all for your testimony. 

I thank the Members for participating at the level that we have 

today. It was very productive, very insightful, and I thank you all. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

And this is the first of, no doubt, of a long series of discussions 

as we work through the next farm bill process. Nothing can be 

more important than protecting our natural resources, the lives of 

our fellow citizens, our domesticated livestock, and wildlife too. And 

in these programs, we cover all of those important, critical areas. 

With that, under the Rules of the Committee, the record for today’s hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

85 

SUBMITTED REPORT BY HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM OKLAHOMA

Report to Congress—USDA–NRCS Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program Multi-Year Plan 

December 2015 

Contents 

Preface 

Introduction 

Background 

A Federal-State-Local Partnership 

Authorized Purposes 

Stakeholder Input 

Agency Assessment of National Needs 

Process for Prioritizing Watershed Project Proposals 

Summary 

References 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020 

Appendix B: Watershed Operations Appropriations, 1947–2015 

Appendix C: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act—P.L. 83–566 

Preface 

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related 

Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2015, included the following Congressional directive: 

‘‘Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Plan.—The Committee directs 

NRCS to establish a long-term, multi-year plan to guide needed investments in 

watershed surveys and planning and watershed operations as authorized under 

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.L. 83–566. The plan 

should establish a process for setting and ranking watershed operations and 

flood prevention priorities, reflecting the agency’s mission, goals, and requirements; consideration of existing investment in planning, infrastructure, and land 

treatment; and future needs for investment to improve watershed condition or 

prevent or mitigate watershed impairments. The plan should also include estimated funding requirements. As the agency develops the plan, the Committee encourages it to provide interested parties an opportunity to provide input. The 


11507019.eps
86 

agency is directed to develop the plan and report to Congress within 90 days 

after enactment of this Act.’’ 

The following plan is provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) in response to this request. 

Introduction 

The watershed program established through the Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (Public Law 83–566) (watershed program) authorizes the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to work with local 

sponsors to install watershed protection and improvement projects (see Appendix C 

for P.L. 83–566 language). These projects create and protect vital infrastructure 

while conserving and protecting natural resources and contributing to local economies. 

The watershed program was designed to address the critical challenges facing 

rural water resource protection and management. The watershed program initially 

focused on the design and construction of structural water control measures. 

Projects starting in the late 1970s focused on watershed plans and a greater emphasis on land treatment measures. Watershed planning also provides a basis for 

partnering at state and local levels to identify and co-invest in projects reflecting 

the highest priority needs. 

Watershed scale approaches are foundational to progress toward today’s challenges such as reducing nitrogen and phosphorus transport to Lake Erie, Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay. Other water management challenges that will be 

best addressed at the watershed scale include agricultural irrigation efficiency in 

California’s Central Valley and in the Colorado River Basin; water management improvements to protect and restore environmentally and economically significant fisheries in the Pacific Northwest; acid mine drainage remediation needs in Appalachia 

and the Intermountain West; and flood protection for infrastructure and communities in the Central Plains and Northeastern States. 

These and other benefits are well-founded in scientific research. For example, 

thirteen watershed scale projects summarized by Osmond, et al. (2012) not only 

demonstrated the effectiveness of watershed scale planning for improving water 

quality; but those studies also provided identification of critical source areas of nutrients and sediment (Meals, et al., 2012b); important socioeconomic drivers for enhancing conservation adoption at a watershed scale; best measures for quantifying 

outcomes; and numerous other parameters for successful watershed scale planning 

and implementation (Meals, et al., 2012a). 

This multi-year plan describes near-term needs including the existing approved 

project backlog, remediation of existing structures, and emerging needs, along with 

a process for guiding future investments to improve watershed condition. The watershed program can provide a valuable tool for agriculture and rural communities 

across the nation to address serious water management threats from extreme 

drought to unprecedented flooding. 

The vision is a Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program delivered in partnership with local sponsors to protect and enhance agriculture 

and the environment through measures that provide landscape resilience, 

flood prevention, and water quantity and quality benefits for individuals 

and communities. 

Background 

Over the past 6 decades the nation has invested $6.2 billion (nominal dollars) 

through the watershed program to install over 2,000 projects across the country 

(Fig. 1) to create and protect vital infrastructure while conserving and protecting 

natural resources and contributing to local economies (see Appendix B for a table 

of historical appropriations). The objectives of many of the original projects were to 

reduce flooding, improve drainage, and increase irrigation efficiencies. In the 1960s, 

high priority was placed on projects that provided jobs to combat poverty and encourage rural development; many of these projects involved establishing recreation 

areas. In later years projects focused on land treatment measures to solve natural 

resource problems, such as substandard water quality and loss of wildlife habitat. 

87 

Figure 1: Watershed Projects Funded, 1947–2010 

Watershed Operation Projects—Number of Projects Funded 

These watershed projects continue to deliver benefits that are increasingly important as population and food security demands rise, and the frequency and intensity 

of extreme weather events increase (Cai, et al., 2014). By avoiding and reducing 

flood damages, NRCS estimates that this program annually provides over $352 million in benefits to agriculture and over $462 million in benefits to non-agricultural 

uses, such as roads, bridges, and homes. Other benefits such as erosion control, 

water conservation, water quality improvement and irrigation efficiency exceed $441 

million on agricultural lands and over $957 million from recreation, fish and wildlife, rural water supply and municipal and industrial water supply, annually. In 

total, as a result of installed watershed projects made possible through the investment from NRCS and local sponsors, the watershed program provides an estimated 

$2.2 billion in average annual benefits across the nation (Fig. 2). 


11507020.eps
88 

1 Benefit estimates presented here are drawn from the benefit cost analyses that are completed for each watershed project prior to implementation, and which monetize the estimated 

annual benefits for the project. Projects must have a greater than 1:1 benefit-cost ratio for approval. The estimates presented here have been adjusted for inflation and are considered conservative. 

Figure 2. Watershed Program Benefits—Average Annual Monetary Benefits 

(2014 Dollars) 

Watershed Operation Projects—Average Annual Benefits 

Another way to view these benefits is by the number of people and communities 

who benefit directly from watershed projects. The existing projects are protecting 

over 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000 farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, 

and 28,000 domestic water supplies (Fig. 3). As a result, over 48 million people 

across the United States benefit from the watershed program every year.1


11507021.eps
89 

Figure 3. Watershed Program Benefits—Number of People Benefitting 

Watershed Operation Projects—Average People Benefitting 

A Federal-State-Local Partnership 

At the core of the watershed program is a unique Federal-state-local partnership 

with project sponsors. Local sponsors identify needs, provide funding, and commit 

to operating and maintaining the completed projects over the long-term. The 

amount of funding and related arrangements depends on the type of project being 

implemented. Historically, local sponsors have provided an average of 60 percent of 

the total project funding. The non-Federal contributions include local and state inkind contributions and funding for construction, permits, easement acquisition, and 

operations and maintenance for the project life. Working in cooperation with local 

sponsoring organizations, NRCS prepares detailed watershed plans that outline soil 

and water management resource concerns and alternatives to address them, including estimated benefits and costs, cost-share funding and arrangements, and operation and maintenance arrangements. Projects are locally driven, addressing critical 

needs for the community and delivering multiple streams of benefits. 

Secretary Ezra Taft Benson wrote in the 1955 [Y]earbook of Agriculture, ‘‘The 

new watershed protection program (P.L. 83–566) clearly should not be looked 

upon as some miracle coming out of the Federal treasury. If it is successful, it 

will be because local people working through their organizations with the help 

of their state government assume and maintain principle initiative.’’ 

The watershed program provides the authority to carry out Cooperative River 

Basin Studies and Watershed Surveys and Planning Program activities. The Cooperative River Basin Studies authorities include cooperative river basin studies, 

floodplain management studies, flood insurance studies, and interagency coordination and program formulation. These combine the efforts of Federal, state, and local 

agencies to establish a basis for the development of coordinated water resource programs. Investigation and survey reports serve as guides for the development of 

water, land, and related resources in agricultural, rural, and urban areas within upstream watershed settings. They also serve as a basis for coordination with major 

river systems and other phases of water resource management and development. 

Watershed Surveys and Planning allows NRCS and local partners to plan actions 

to address identified resource concerns within a watershed. 


11507022.eps
90 

NRCS provides Federal financial assistance to project sponsors for the installation 

costs of land treatment measures to achieve environmental and public benefits such 

as surface and groundwater quality improvement, water conservation, and flood 

mitigation. 

As of December 2014, the Federal Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines 

(PR&G) superseded the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (P&G) to guide the formulation and evaluation of all water resources projects. The PR&G are intended to 

ensure proper and consistent planning by Federal agencies in the formulation and 

evaluation of water and related land resources implementation studies. Benefits and 

costs are estimated using the best current techniques and are calculated accurately, 

consistently, and in compliance with other economic evaluation requirements. 

Prior to implementation of the project, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires NRCS to analyze the environmental impacts of such actions and 

make the analysis available to the public before decisions are made and actions are 

taken unless the action is categorically excluded. 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Environmental Assessments (EA) address ecological conditions such as water and air quality, watershed or ecosystem 

health, species diversity and richness. In addition, aspects for the economic and social, historical and cultural, political, and many other factors that may influence 

major changes in land use or management of the soil, water, air, plant, or animal 

resources are considered. Impacts of the future population centers and transportation infrastructure are also included. 

Authorized Purposes 

The authorized purposes for watershed projects are wide-ranging, and mutually 

supportive: 

• Flood prevention—Flood prevention measures reduce flooding and damage 

caused by floodwater, including reducing runoff, erosion and sediment. These 

measures may include structural measures, such as dams or levees; nonstructural measures, such as easements, flood proofing, or infrastructure relocation; or a combination of both types of measures (Fig. 4). 

• Watershed protection—Watershed protection includes onsite treatment of watershed natural resource concerns, such as water quality or water quantity. Project 

measures may target controls for offsite floodwater, erosion, sediment and agriculture related pollutants (Fig. 5). 

• Agricultural water management—Agricultural water management includes 

measures that help to manage water supply for agriculture and rural communities. Measures such as drainage management, groundwater recharge, irrigation management, water conservation, water quality improvement, and rural 

water supply are included (Fig. 6). 

• Municipal and industrial water supply—Municipal and industrial water supply 

includes measures necessary to provide storage capacity in reservoirs to increase the availability of water for present and future use (Fig. 7). 

• Fish and wildlife habitat and public recreation development—Fish and wildlife 

habitat and public recreation development are often companion purposes in watershed projects. These project purposes may be included in a watershed plan 

when the sponsor agrees to operate and maintain a reservoir or other area for 

public recreation or fish and wildlife access (Fig. 8). 

The following figures provide examples of existing watershed projects and the 

types of benefits delivered. 

91 

Figure 4. Watershed Project, Virginia 

This project includes structural (dam) and nonstructural measures to 

manage water for this community, providing flood prevention, water quality, and recreation benefits. 

Figure 5. Watershed Project, Tama, Iowa 

This project combines terraces, buffer strips, and grass planting measures 

to address local water quality natural resource concerns. 


11507023.eps 11507024.eps
92 

Figure 6. Grade Stabilization, Gracemont, Oklahoma 

This project in Kickapoo Creek, Oklahoma reduces streambank erosion 

and improves water quality. 

Figure 7. Three Mile Lake, Union County, Iowa 

This project provides water supply, flood prevention and recreation benefits. 


11507025.eps 11507026.eps
93 

Figure 8. Watershed Project, Western Missouri 

This project provides water supply and recreational opportunities. 

Stakeholder Input 

In preparing this multi-year plan, NRCS reached out to stakeholders on priority 

needs and recommendations for program implementation. Several national organizations provided comments, which are summarized below. 

Focus investments on agricultural water supply and resilience to climate change. 

Commenters encouraged USDA–NRCS to specifically recognize the threats to agriculture from climate change, specifically the anticipated impacts on water supply for 

agriculture and the related impacts on food supply, prices, and producer financial 

risk. Commenters recommended that the priority for watershed program investments be on agricultural water supply and resilience to climate change impacts. Future investment decisions should be guided toward agricultural viability, resilience, 

and reducing vulnerability. Commenters recognized that this approach may drive a 

focus toward new projects as a result of emerging vulnerabilities from climate-induced stresses to water supply and management. 

Include forest restoration on private lands to protect water supplies as a priority. 

Commenters encouraged USDA–NRCS to recognize the significant threat to water 

supplies that is posed by loss of forested lands. The commenters noted that an estimated 53 percent of water supply in the contiguous 48 states originates on 

forestland and that western forests are particularly at risk, many of which are privately owned and play a significant role in water supply and water quality. Restoration of forests on private land to improve their resilience helps to reduce wildfire 

risks for private and adjacent public forestlands. 

Align investments with other agencies where possible to maximize impact. One 

commenter recommended that USDA–NRCS provide priority for projects that complement or align with work being conducted by other agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest 

Service) to amplify benefits. For example prioritizing projects that would restore private forestland where Federal land management agencies are conducting similar activities on adjacent public lands. 

Establish a continuing review and ranking of watershed projects. Recognizing that 

a significant backlog exists in previously authorized watershed projects and that 

some may no longer be of local interest, commenters recommended that USDA– 

NRCS assess all previously authorized yet uncompleted projects. It was recommended that the resulting list of projects should be prioritized in conjunction 

with partners, and the priority setting process include a ‘‘readiness criteria test’’ for 

implementation. In addition, commenters recommended that projects in queue be reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN

11507027.eps
94 

viewed and re-ranked annually to allow the program to be responsive to changing 

conditions. 

Advocate for legislative changes to streamline implementation. Commenters noted 

that circumstances have changed significantly since the watershed program was authorized (1954) and opportunity exists to streamline and improve operations. These 

recommendations for legislative changes, outside the scope of this plan, focused on: 

broadening and balancing program purposes and eligibility; removing structure size 

limitations; improving data and benefits information; harmonizing program with 

similar authorities in other agencies; addressing cost-share rates; eliminating unused authorities and lower priority purposes; and improving clarity and intent. 

Agency Assessment of National Needs 

In addition to invited comments, NRCS also evaluated specific watershed protection and flood prevention project needs and associated costs as part of this plan development. This included a review of the existing authorized but unfunded projects, 

existing projects needing remediation, and potential new projects. Through this 

process, 220 projects were identified; addressing a variety of purposes from flood 

prevention and watershed protection to agricultural water management and municipal and industrial water supply. The total cost of these projects was estimated at 

nearly $1.4 billion from FY 2016 through 2020 (Fig. 9), which includes the share 

that would be contributed by the state or local partners, generally about 25 percent 

of total costs. Appendix A provides greater detail on project locations, purposes, and 

estimated costs. 

Figure 9. Estimated Funding Need for Watershed Projects, by State, 2016– 

2020 

(Over $1.4 billion in funding needed) 

Estimated funding needs to complete projects vary by fiscal year reflecting differences in the project status, length of time to complete, and complexity of the 

project. Figure 10 shows the level of estimated funding and number of active 

projects by fiscal year. The 220 identified projects cover more than one fiscal year; 

the project numbers presented in the figure below reflect projects that would be underway at that time and are not additive across fiscal years. 


11507028.eps
95 

Figure 10. Estimated Funding Need and Active Projects, by Fiscal Year 

The majority (2⁄3) of projects focus on one of four single purposes—Flood Prevention, Agricultural Water Management, Land Treatment, or Water Quality (Fig. 11). 

Flood Prevention accounted for over 80 percent of these single-purpose projects and 

was identified as a shared purpose in another 19 percent of projects, making it the 

most common objective of the identified needs. 

Figure 11. Estimated Funding Need by Number of Project Purposes 

Projects were also identified in terms of the type of activity to be conducted. Most 

project needs focused on completing construction of previously planned and designed 

components. Less than five percent of identified funding is for remediation needs— 

existing projects where measures are needed to correct oversights in structural designs or construction. Table 1 shows the number of projects and estimated funding 

by the stage of the project. 

Table 1. Number of Projects by Stage and Associated Estimated Funding 

Need 

Project Stage Estimated Funding Number of Projects 

Remediation $61,147,500 49 

Planning $23,295,000 12 

Planning/Design $1,000,000 1 

Design $26,746,700 13 

Design/Construction $403,388,640 81 

Construction $128,202,000 32 


11507029.eps 11507030.eps
96 

Table 1. Number of Projects by Stage and Associated Estimated Funding 

Need—Continued 

Project Stage Estimated Funding Number of Projects 

Planning/Design/Construction $760,238,600 32 

Grand Total $1,404,018,440 220 

Process for Prioritizing Watershed Project Proposals 

The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) Program provides technical and financial assistance to states, local governments and Tribes (project sponsors) to plan and implement authorized watershed project plans for the purpose of: 

• watershed protection. 

• flood mitigation. 

• water quality improvements. 

• soil erosion reduction. 

• rural, municipal and industrial water supply. 

• irrigation. 

• water management. 

• sediment control. 

• fish and wildlife enhancement. 

• hydropower. 

In order to be approved, projects must (1) be publicly sponsored, (2) be 250,000 

acres or less, and (3) have at least 20 percent of benefits related to agriculture, including rural communities. In addition and in accordance with statute, projects that 

will exceed $5 million in Federal contributions or with single structures holding 

more than 2,500 acre-feet require Congressional approval. 

Sponsor capacity is an essential project element; sponsors must demonstrate capacity to implement, operate, and maintain the project, including possessing the 

necessary authorities; funding; acquisition of easements or other rights needed; and 

demonstrated capability to operate and maintain the project upon completion. 

Pursuant to Congressional guidance, the agency process for prioritizing watershed 

projects must consider (1) the agency’s mission, (2) existing investment in watershed 

projects, and (3) future needs for improving watershed condition and mitigating the 

potential for watershed impairments. 

Agency Mission 

NRCS’ Mission Statement is ‘‘Helping People Help the Land,’’ which highlights 

the agency’s role in developing and delivering high quality products and services 

that enable people to be good stewards of the nation’s soil, water, and related natural resources on non-Federal lands. The vision is a landscape where working 

farms, forests, and ranches are in balance with a healthy environment. This mission 

statement aligns seamlessly with the purposes of the watershed program and the 

agency’s emphasis on assisting agricultural producers and communities address the 

dual challenges of adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change. 

Existing Investment 

To guide investment in existing watershed projects, NRCS will focus on those 

projects where remediation is required. These are projects where the engineering design or related aspects of implementation are not operating as intended, as evaluated and verified through inspection. An estimated 49 projects in eight states are 

in need of remediation at an estimated $55 million, or four percent of total needs 

for the period 2016–2020. Based on funding availability, NRCS will allocate an appropriate level to address remediation needs on an annual basis. 

Future Needs 

To guide investment in future needs for improving watershed condition and mitigating potential for watershed impairments, NRCS is establishing a process based 

on state and national priorities. The process will include an annual announcement 

program funding (APF) that will outline the specific state and national priorities to 

be emphasized in the funding year. This allows the agency to focus funding effectively, while providing flexibility over time to accommodate emerging watershed protection priorities. NRCS will evaluate and rank potential projects for funding annuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN
97 

ally based on alignment with program priorities established at the state and national levels to be locally responsive, and nationally consistent: 

1. State priorities—State Conservationists identify state watershed project priorities with advice from the State Technical Committee. Priorities will consider 

current conditions and threats such as the effects of climate change, and the 

major natural resource challenges facing agriculture and rural communities, 

such as water supply or flooding. 

2. National Priorities—National priorities focus on durability and equity. Project 

proposals will be ranked based on the following: 

• Partner leverage and contributions. 

• Positive return on investment and higher benefit-cost ratio. 

• Contributions to a regional water management need or concern. 

• Benefits in high-poverty or historically under-served communities. 

• Durability of water management solutions for the benefitted area (e.g., 

economic benefits exceed estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs 

for the long-term; local O&M assured; success of the project is not dependent on environmental or economic factors outside the project area). 

This annual process and the associated ranking factors will result in prioritizing 

projects that will address a locally important, pressing natural resource issue in a 

timely manner. 

Sponsors would be expected to respond to the APF for any project proposed for 

funding, including those needs outlined in this report and detailed in Appendix A. 

This proactive process ensures that funding will be directed to those projects best 

positioned for immediate implementation. 

Summary 

Many challenges that face our nation’s food security, water quality, water supplies, wildlife habitat, rural economies, and communities are most cost-effectively 

and efficiently addressed at a watershed scale. The USDA–NRCS watershed program is authorized to address these and related challenges. Historic droughts, 

floods, and other extreme weather events in recent years have demonstrated the 

value of previous investments in this program—nearly $2.2 billion in benefits each 

year accrue as a result of these investments. Today, the watershed program offers 

the opportunity to address pressing water management issues facing agriculture 

and communities. 

In preparing this multi-year plan NRCS conducted an assessment of current 

needs. Through that process nearly $1.4 billion in estimated funding needs for 

2016–2020 were identified. In addition, NRCS sought input from stakeholders on 

priorities for the program, going forward. Recommendations were used to help shape 

a priority setting process that accommodates local needs and national priorities. 

NRCS will use the prioritization process outlined in this plan to focus funding on 

the highest priority projects for improving watershed condition and building landscape resilience and preserving, protecting, and improving the nation’s land and 

water resources and quality of the environment. 

References 

Cai, W., S. Borlace, M. Lengaigne, P. vanRensch, M. Collins, G. Vecchi, A. 

Timmermann, A. Santoso, M. McPhaden, L. Wu, M. England, G. Wang, E. 

Guilyardi, and F. Jin. 2014. Increasing frequency of extreme El Nin ̃ o events due to 

greenhouse warming. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE. 4: 111–116. doi:10.1038/ 

nclimate2100. 

Fischer, E., and R. Knutti. 2015. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence 

of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE. 5: 

560–564. doi:10.1038/nclimate2617. 

Meals, D., D. Osmond, D. Hoag, M. Arabi, A. Luloff, G. Jennings, M. McFarland, 

J. Spooner, A. Sharpley, and D. Line. 2012a. Lessons learned from the NIFA–CEAP: 

Developing agricultural watershed projects. NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 

Meals, D., A. Sharpley, and D. Osmond. 2012b. Lessons learned from the NIFA– 

CEAP: Identifying critical source areas. NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 

Osmond, D., D. Meals, D. Hoag, and M. Arabi. (Eds.) 2012. How to build better 

agricultural conservation programs to protect water quality: the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture—Conservation Effects Assessment Project experience. Soil and 

Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA. 

98 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020 

State Project Name Eligible Purpose(s) Project Status Estimated 

Funding 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Alabama Big Nance Creek Site 4 FP Remedial $500,000 

Mush Creek Site 2 FP Remedial $500,000 

Powell Creek Site 3 FP Remedial $1,000,000 

Powell Creek Site 4 FP Remedial $1,000,000 

Arizona Fredonia FRS FP Remedial $23,000,000 

Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Design $125,000 

Departee Creek FP Construction $750,000 

Departee Creek FP Design $150,000 

Grand Prairie AWM Design $125,000 

California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, M&I Planning $300,000 

Lower Llagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $500,000 

Lower Silver Creek FP, LT, WQ Planning $500,000 

McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Design $500,000 

Colorado 6 Mile St. Charles LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000 

Highland Breaks LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000 

Holbrook Lake Ditch LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000 

Limestone-Graveyard Creeks LT, WQ Construction $500,000 

Georgia Bull Creek 3 FP, LT Remedial $400,000 

North Broad River 33 FP, LT Remedial $150,000 

Hawaii Lahaina FP, LT Design/Construction $9,900,000 

Upcountry Maui AWM Design/Construction $2,550,000 

Indiana Muddy Fork of Silver Creek FP, F&W, M&I Planning $250,000 

Prairie Creek (Daviess) FP, WQ Planning $300,000 

Iowa Clarke County Water Supply AWM Design/Construction $3,315,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Design/Construction $411,800 

Kansas Doyle Creek—Site 11 FP Construction $879,000 

Elk Creek—Site 4 FP Design $39,000 

Grasshopper Coal—Site 29 FP Design $37,000 

North Black Vermillion—Site 201 FP Construction $445,000 

South Fork Wolf—Site 12–26 FP Construction $939,000 

Kentucky Pike County—Floodplain Easement FP Planning $1,000,000 

Rockhouse Creek FP, LT, F&W Planning $350,000 

South Fork Little River FP, LT Planning $1,000,000 

West Fork Mayfield Creek FP Planning $750,000 

Massachusetts Allen Site Dam FP, LT, F&W Remedial/Design $200,000 

Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration 

Project 

LT, F&W, WQ Planning/Design $3,000,000 

Deerfield River LT, WQ Planning $300,000 

Great Marsh Restoration Project LT, F&W, WQ Planning $225,000 

Minnesota Rice Lake WQ Planning/Design $345,000 

Mississippi Abiaca Dam 3 (Y–34–03) FP Remedial $250,000 

Byhalia Creek Watershed Dam 4 FP Remedial $200,000 

Long Beach Canal 1 Phase 1 FP Construction $2,500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Upper Tallahatchie LT Construction $500,000 

Piney Creek GCS LT Construction $750,000 

Sabougla Watershed LT Construction $500,000 

Town Creek FP Remedial $200,000 

Town Creek Dam 5 FP Construction $2,500,000 

Yazoo—Arcabutla Creek LT Construction $500,000 

Yazoo—Skuna Structure No. 6 LT Remedial $200,000 

Missouri East Locust Creek AWM, FP, F&W Planning/Design $5,000,000 

Little Otter Creek AWM, FP, F&W Construction $2,000,000 

N. Mariana Islands Kagman Watershed FP, LT, AWM Design/Construction $1,250,000 

Nebraska Papio Creek S–5, S–22, D–31, D–78 FP Planning $600,000 

New Jersey Assunpink Site 19 FP, F&W Remedial $90,000 

New York Ashokan LT Design/Construction $30,000 

Lower Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Moonda/Saterly Creek FP Planning $200,000 

Neversink LT Design/Construction $10,000 

Newtown Hoffman Site 18 FP Design $100,000 

Pepacton LT Design/Construction $180,000 

Roundout LT Design/Construction $20,000 

Schoharie LT Design/Construction $100,000 

Upper Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

North Dakota Red River Detention FP, LT, WQ Planning/Design $1,000,000 

Oklahoma Bear 3 FP Remedial $750,000 

Bear 5 FP Remedial $125,000 

Boggy Creek 25 FP Remedial $225,000 

Calvary 12 FP Remedial $120,000 

Fast Runner 3 FP Remedial $50,000 

Lower Bayou 12 FP Design $450,000 

Lower Red Rock 1 FP Design $475,000 

Middle Deep Red Run 7A FP Design $510,000 

Sugar Creek (Binger Site) FP Design $395,000 

Sugar Creek Drop REM FP Design $325,000 

Turkey Creek 9 FP Design $425,000 

Upper Blue River 46 FP Design $425,000 

Upper Blue River 48 FP Design $375,000 

Upper Blue River 48 FP Design $375,000 

Oregon Alder Slope Irrigation AWM, WQ Construction $275,000 

Arnold Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design/Construction $1,516,000 

Central Oregon Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design/Construction $8,791,820 

Champoeg Watershed AWM, WQ Planning $275,000 

Mud Springs—NUID Lateral 58—11 WQ, AWM Design $160,200 

North Agency Plains WQ, AWM Planning $217,500 

North Prairie Creek Irrigation AWM, WQ, LT Construction $1,100,000 

North Unit Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design/Construction $730,000 

Ochoco Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design/Construction $595,000 

Swalley Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Planning $295,000 

Three Sisters Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $2,580,000 

Tumalo Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design/Construction $2,000,000 

Twilight Water Quality WQ, AWM Design $80,000 

Upper Grande Ronde Watershed LT, WQ Planning $365,000 

Vale Bench Lateral 227 WQ, AWM Planning $165,000 

Pennsylvania Bentley Creek FP Planning $20,000 

Little Toby Creek WQ Planning $20,000 

Mill Creek WQ Planning $50,000 

Rhode Island Pocasset River Flood Mitigation Project FP Planning $150,000 

Tennessee Bear Creek (Scott) FP Design $200,000 

Texas Big Creek (Tri-County) FP, M&I, F&W Design $500,000 

99 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020—Continued 

State Project Name Eligible Purpose(s) Project Status Estimated 

Funding 

Choctaw Creek FP Design $500,000 

Ecleto Creek FP Design $800,000 

Elm Creek (1250) FP Design $1,000,000 

Elm Creek (Cen-Tex) FP Design $1,000,000 

Lakeview FP Remedial $500,000 

Trinity—Big Sandy Creek FP Design $500,000 

Trinity—Grays Creek FP Remedial $200,000 

Utah Anabella Canal AWM, FP Design $4,200,000 

Cottonwood Canyon (Anabella) FP, AWM Design $3,200,000 

Flat Canyon DB FP, AWM Design $8,500,000 

Marion Canal AWM, FP Planning $1,500,000 

Willow Creek FP, AWM Design $350,000 

Virginia North Fork Powell River LT, WQ Design/Construction $1,000,000 

West Virginia Big Sandy—Dry Fork FP, WQ, LT Planning $500,000 

Potomac—Lost River 16 FP, M&I Construction $35,000,000 

Wyoming Kaycee FP Design $350,000 

Fiscal Year 2017 

Alabama Camp Branch LT, WQ Design/Construction $396,000 

Harrison Mill/Panther Creek LT, WQ Design/Construction $225,000 

Northeast Yellow River LT, WQ Design, Construction $1,878,500 

Pates Creek LT, WQ Design/Construction $228,000 

Alaska Delta Clearwater FP Construction $13,000,000 

Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000 

Big Slough Site 7 FP Design $250,000 

Departee Creek FP Design $125,000 

Grand Prairie AWM Construction $6,250,000 

California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, M&I Planning $300,000 

Lllagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $127,250,000 

Lower Calaveras—Mormon FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $1,750,000 

Lower Llagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $500,000 

Lower Silver Creek FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000 

McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000 

Mill FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $1,190,000 

Oasis FP, LT, WQ Planning $1,000,000 

Upper Calaveras FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $2,870,000 

Upper Deer—Upper White FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $2,590,000 

Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $980,000 

Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $2,030,000 

Colorado 6 Mile St. Charles LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000 

Highland Breaks LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000 

Holbrook Lake Ditch LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000 

Limestone—Graveyard Creeks LT, WQ Construction $500,000 

Hawaii Lahaina FP, LT Construction $6,800,000 

Lower Hamakua Ditch AWM, LT Design/Construction $500,000 

Upcountry Maui AWM Design $600,000 

Wailuku—Alenaio FP Design $300,000 

Indiana Muddy Fork of Silver Creek FP, F&W, M&I Planning $250,000 

Prairie Creek (Daviess) FP, WQ Planning $300,000 

Iowa Clarke County Water Supply AWM Design/Construction $13,150,000 

Twelve Mile Creek FP Design/Construction $235,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Design/Construction $514,600 

Kansas Elk Creek—Site 12 FP Design $40,000 

Elk Creek—Site 4 FP Construction $463,900 

Grasshopper Coal—Site 29 FP Construction $435,000 

Squaw Creek Lower Wolf—Site 5–9 FP Design $35,000 

Squaw Creek Lower Wolf—Site 6–4a FP Design $44,000 

Kentucky Pike County—Floodpain Easement FP Plan/Implement $1,000,000 

Rockhouse Creek FP, LT, F&W Design $700,000 

South Fork Little River FP, LT Design $700,000 

West Fork Mayfield Creek FP Design $300,000 

Massachusetts Allen Site Dam FP, LT, F&W Remedial $500,000 

Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration 

Project 

LT, F&W, WQ Plan/Design/Construction $4,000,000 

Deerfield River LT, WQ Planning $300,000 

Great Marsh Restoration Project LT, F&W, WQ Planning $225,000 

Minnesota Rice Lake WQ Construction $1,915,000 

Mississippi Long Beach Canal 1 Phase 2 FP Construction $2,500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Upper Tallahatchie LT Construction $500,000 

Piney Creek GCS LT Construction $750,000 

Town Creek LT Construction $500,000 

Yazoo—Arcabutla Creek LT Construction $500,000 

Yazoo—Skuna Yoda Creek Structure LT Remedial $250,000 

Missouri Big Creek Hurricane Ck FP Construction $1,000,000 

East Locust Creek AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000 

Upper Locust Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

N. Mariana Islands Kagman Watershed FP, LT, AWM Design/Construction $650,000 

Nebraska Papio S–22 FP Design $200,000 

Papio S–5 FP Design $500,000 

New York Ashokan LT Design/Construction $30,000 

Lower Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Moonda/Saterly Creek FP Planning $200,000 

Neversink LT Design/Construction $10,000 

Newtown Hoffman Site 18 FP Design $50,000 

Pepacton LT Design/Construction $180,000 

Roundout LT Design/Construction $20,000 

Schoharie LT Design/Construction $100,000 

Upper Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Oklahoma Dry Creek 17 FP Remedial $75,000 

Little Deep Fork 20 FP Remedial $95,000 

Lower Bayou 12 FP Construction $1,300,000 

Lower Red Rock 16 FP Remedial $150,000 

Middle Deep Red Run 7A FP Construction $1,400,000 

North Deer Creek 1 FP Remedial $142,500 

Quawpaw 27 FP Remedial $110,000 

Sugar Creek Drop FP Remedial $210,000 

Sugar Creek Drop FP Remedial $2,500,000 

Upper Black Bear 36 FP Remedial $125,000 

Upper Blue River 35 FP Design $450,000 

Upper Blue River 36 FP Design $450,000 

100 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020—Continued 

State Project Name Eligible Purpose(s) Project Status Estimated 

Funding 

Upper Blue River 46 FP Construction $850,000 

Upper Blue River 48 FP Construction $950,000 

Oregon Alder Slope Irrigation AWM, WQ Construction $962,000 

Arnold Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $2,060,000 

Central Oregon Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $3,649,220 

Champoeg Watershed AWM, WQ Design $495,000 

Mud Springs—NUID Lateral 58—11 WQ, AWM Construction $150,000 

North Agency Plains WQ, AWM Design $217,500 

North Prairie Creek Irrigation AWM, WQ, LT Construction $2,200,000 

North Unit Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $880,000 

Ochoco Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,230,000 

Swalley Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $510,000 

Three Sisters Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,846,000 

Tumalo Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $2,000,000 

Twilight Water Quality WQ, AWM Design $160,000 

Upper Grande Ronde Watershed LT, WQ Planning $380,000 

Vale Bench Lateral 227 WQ, AWM Planning $275,000 

Pennsylvania Bentley Creek FP Design $1,200,000 

Little Toby Creek WQ Design $200,000 

Mill Creek WQ Design $350,000 

unnamed watershed FP Planning $200,000 

Rhode Island Pocasset River Flood Mitigation Project FP Design $1,530,000 

Tennessee Bear Creek (Scott) WQ Construction $2,000,000 

Hurricane Creek FP, M&I Design $750,000 

North Fork Forked Deer FP Remedial/Design $800,000 

Texas Big Creek (Tri-County) FP, M&I, F&W Design/Construction $5,000,000 

Choctaw Creek FP Construction $6,000,000 

Elm Creek (1250) FP Design/Construction $4,000,000 

Trinity—Big Sandy Creek FP Construction $6,000,000 

Trinity—Chambers Creek FP Remedial $3,000,000 

Trinity—Pilot Grove FP Remedial $3,000,000 

Trinity—Richland Creek FP Remedial $3,000,000 

Utah Cedar Ridge FP, AWM Design $3,800,000 

Coyote Gulch Wash (Ivins) FP Planning $2,800,000 

Gould’s Wash DB FP, AWM Design $4,500,000 

St. George DBs FP Planning $3,200,000 

Vigin FP Planning $1,500,000 

Virginia North Fork Powell River LT, WQ Design/Construction $500,000 

Wyoming Kaycee FP Construction $1,235,400 

Fiscal Year 2018 

Alabama Whitewater Creek LT, WQ Design/Construction $114,000 

Wilkerson Creek LT, WQ Design/Construction $396,000 

Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000 

Big Slough Site 7 FP Construction $1,250,000 

Departee Creek FP Construction $5,500,000 

Grand Prairie AWM Construction $6,250,000 

California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, M&I Design $500,000 

Lllagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $10,000,000 

Lower Calaveras—Mormon FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $1,750,000 

Lower Llagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $3,000,000 

Lower Silver Creek FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000 

McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Design $750,000 

Mill FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $1,190,000 

Oasis FP, LT, WQ Planning $750,000 

Upper Calaveras FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $2,870,000 

Upper Deer—Upper White FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $2,590,000 

Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $980,000 

Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Planning $2,030,000 

Colorado 6 Mile St. Charles LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000 

Highland Breaks LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000 

Holbrook Lake Ditch LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000 

Limestone—Graveyard Creeks LT, WQ Construction $500,000 

Hawaii Kahaluu FP, LT, REC Planning $100,000 

Lower Hamakua Ditch AWM, LT Design/Construction $1,500,000 

Wailuku—Alenaio FP Construction $1,100,000 

Waimanalo AWM Planning/Design $200,000 

Indiana Muddy Fork of Silver Creek FP, F&W, M&I Design $470,000 

Prairie Creek (Daviess) FP, WQ Design $330,000 

Iowa Clarke County Water Supply AWM Construction $5,634,600 

East Fork of the Grand River FP Design/Construction $1,259,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Construction $514,600 

Kansas Elk Creek—Site 12 FP Construction $467,500 

Middle Creek—Site 11 FP Design $100,000 

Squaw Creek Lower Wolf—Site 5–8 FP Design $58,000 

Squaw Creek Lower Wolf—Site 5–9 FP Construction $414,000 

Squaw Creek Lower Wolf—Site 6–4a FP Construction $523,000 

Kentucky Pike County—Floodpain Easement FP Implementation $500,000 

Rockhouse Creek FP, LT, F&W Construction $4,500,000 

South Fork Little River FP, LT Construction $5,000,000 

West Fork Mayfield Creek FP Construction $5,000,000 

Massachusetts Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration 

Project 

LT, F&W, WQ Plan/Design/Construction $8,000,000 

Deerfield River LT, WQ Planning $300,000 

Mississippi Ellison Creek GCS 1 LT Remedial $250,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Upper Tallahatchie LT Construction $500,000 

Piney Creek GCS LT Construction $750,000 

Town Creek LT Construction $200,000 

Yazoo—Arcabutla Creek LT Construction $250,000 

Yazoo—Skuna River LT Construction $500,000 

Missouri Big Creek Hurricane Ck FP Construction $1,000,000 

East Locust Creek AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000 

East Yellow Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

Upper Locust Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

N. Mariana Islands Kagman Watershed FP, LT, AWM Construction $4,500,000 

Nebraska Papio D–31 FP Design $200,000 

Papio S–22 FP Design $200,000 

Papio S–5 FP Construction $4,000,000 

New York Ashokan LT Design/Construction $30,000 

Lower Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

101 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020—Continued 

State Project Name Eligible Purpose(s) Project Status Estimated 

Funding 

Moonda/Saterly Creek FP Design $100,000 

Neversink LT Design/Construction $10,000 

Newtown Hoffman Site 18 FP Construction $300,000 

Pepacton LT Design/Construction $180,000 

Roundout LT Design/Construction $20,000 

Schoharie LT Design/Construction $100,000 

Upper Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Oklahoma Bear 44 FP Remedial $210,000 

Brushy Peaceable 5 FP Design $425,000 

Cotton Coon Mission 12A FP Design $425,000 

Cotton Coon Mission 12B FP Design $425,000 

Jack Creek 6 FP Design $400,000 

Lower Black Bear 21 FP Remedial $175,000 

Lower Red Rock 1 FP Construction $2,500,000 

Middle Deep Red Run 7A FP Construction $1,250,000 

Turkey Creek 9 FP Construction $2,100,000 

Uncle John 5 FP Remedial $225,000 

Upper Black Bear 28 FP Remedial $150,000 

Upper Black Bear 28 FP Remedial $180,000 

Upper Blue River 48 FP Construction $1,100,000 

Upper Red Rock Site 7 FP Design $375,000 

Oregon Alder Slope Irrigation AWM, WQ Construction $176,000 

Arnold Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,491,000 

Central Oregon Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $3,810,000 

Champoeg Watershed AWM, WQ Construction $550,000 

North Agency Plains WQ, AWM Construction $298,100 

North Prairie Creek Irrigation AWM, WQ, LT Construction $550,000 

North Unit Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,880,000 

Ochoco Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,210,000 

Swalley Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $230,000 

Three Sisters Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $2,010,000 

Tumalo Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,900,000 

Twilight Water Quality WQ, AWM Design $162,500 

Upper Grande Ronde Watershed LT, WQ Planning $415,000 

Vale Bench Lateral 227 WQ, AWM Planning $220,000 

Pennsylvania Bentley Creek FP Design $300,000 

Little Toby Creek WQ Design $100,000 

Mill Creek WQ Design/Construction $950,000 

unnamed watershed FP Planning $200,000 

Rhode Island Pocasset River Flood Mitigation Project FP Construction $51,000,000 

Tennessee Hurricane Creek FP, M&I Construction $2,500,000 

North Fork Forked Deer FP Design $250,000 

Texas Big Creek (Tri-County) FP, M&I, F&W Construction $5,000,000 

Caney Creek FP Construction $5,400,000 

Elm Creek (1250) FP Construction $11,000,000 

Elm Creek (Cen-Tex) FP Construction $12,000,000 

Utah Green River Canal AWM Planning $6,000,000 

Helper City FP Planning $2,500,000 

Virginia North Fork Powell River LT, WQ Design/Construction $500,000 

West Virginia Big Sandy—Tug Fork—Elkhorn Creek FP, WQ, LT Planning $500,000 

Fiscal Year 2019 

Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000 

Grand Prairie AWM Construction $6,250,000 

California Beardsley FP, LT, AWM, M&I Construction $3,500,000 

Lllagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $10,000,000 

Lower Calaveras—Mormon FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $1,750,000 

Lower Llagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $3,000,000 

Lower Silver Creek FP, LT, WQ Construction $7,000,000 

McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Construction $11,500,000 

Mill FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $1,190,000 

Oasis FP, LT, WQ Design $7,000,000 

Upper Calaveras FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $2,870,000 

Upper Deer—Upper White FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $2,590,000 

Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $980,000 

Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Design $2,030,000 

Colorado 6 Mile St. Charles LT, AWM, WQ Construction $900,000 

Highland Breaks LT, WQ Construction $1,500,000 

Holbrook Lake Ditch LT, AWM, WQ Construction $500,000 

Limestone—Graveyard Creeks LT, WQ Construction $500,000 

Hawaii Kahaluu FP, LT, REC Design $100,000 

Upcountry Maui AWM Construction $5,350,000 

Wailuku—Alenaio FP Design $700,000 

Indiana Muddy Fork of Silver Creek FP, F&W, M&I Construction $4,700,000 

Prairie Creek (Daviess) FP, WQ Construction $3,300,000 

Iowa East Fork of the Grand River FP Design/Construction $1,259,000 

Turkey Creek FP Construction $118,000 

Kansas Middle Creek—Site 11 FP Construction $1,186,500 

Squaw Creek Lower Wolf—Site 5–8 FP Construction $690,500 

Upper Black Vermillion—Site 14 FP Design $33,000 

Upper Black Vermillion—Site 227 FP Design $38,000 

Kentucky Pike County—Floodplain Easement FP Implementation $500,000 

Rockhouse Creek FP, LT, F&W Construction $3,000,000 

South Fork Little River FP, LT Construction $2,000,000 

West Fork Mayfield Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

Massachusetts Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration 

Project 

LT, F&W, WQ Plan/Design/Construction $7,000,000 

Mississippi Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Upper Tallahatchie LT Construction $500,000 

Piney Creek GCS LT Construction $750,000 

Sabougia Watershed LT Construction $500,000 

Yazoo—Arcabutla Creek LT Construction $500,000 

Yazoo—Skuna River LT Construction $500,000 

Missouri Big Creek Hurricane Ck FP Construction $1,000,000 

East Locust Creek AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000 

Upper Locust Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

N. Mariana Islands Kagman Watershed FP, LT, AWM Construction $1,800,000 

Nebraska Papio D–31 FP Design $200,000 

Papio D–78 FP Design $400,000 

Papio S–22 FP Construction $3,500,000 

102 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020—Continued 

State Project Name Eligible Purpose(s) Project Status Estimated 

Funding 

New York Ashokan LT Design/Construction $30,000 

Lower Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Moonda/Saterly Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

Neversink LT Design/Construction $10,000 

Pepacton LT Design/Construction $180,000 

Roundout LT Design/Construction $20,000 

Schoharie LT Design/Construction $100,000 

Upper Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Oklahoma Bear Creek 2 REM FP Remedial $175,000 

Boggy Creek 21 REM FP Remedial $175,000 

Boggy Creek 3 REM FP Remedial $200,000 

Cotton Coon Mission 12A FP Construction $2,500,000 

Cotton Coon Mission 12B FP Construction $2,500,000 

Cotton Coon Mission 14 FP Design $450,000 

Kickappo Nations 8 FP Design $375,000 

South Clinton Lat 2 REM FP Remedial $110,000 

South Clinton Lat 7 REM FP Remedial $110,000 

Sugar Creek (Binger Site) FP Construction $1,250,000 

Turkey 8 REM FP Remedial $250,000 

Upper Blue River 35 FP Construction $2,100,000 

Upper Blue River 36 FP Construction $1,750,000 

Upper Blue River 47 FP Design $450,000 

Upper Muddy Boggy 19 FP Design $410,000 

Upper Red Rock Site 7 FP Construction $2,250,000 

Oregon Alder Slope Irrigation AWM, WQ Construction $176,000 

Arnold Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,725,000 

Central Oregon Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $3,810,000 

Champoeg Watershed AWM, WQ Construction $660,000 

North Agency Plains WQ, AWM Construction $217,500 

North Prairie Creek Irrigation AWM, WQ, LT Construction $330,000 

North Unit Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,870,000 

Ochoco Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,310,000 

Swalley Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $105,000 

Three Sisters Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $1,580,000 

Tumalo Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $2,070,000 

Twilight Water Quality WQ, AWM Design $162,500 

Upper Grande Ronde Watershed LT, WQ Planning $365,000 

Vale Bench Lateral 227 WQ, AWM Planning $20,000 

Pennsylvania Bentley Creek FP Construction $4,500,000 

Little Toby Creek WQ Construction $350,000 

Mill Creek WQ Construction $600,000 

unnamed watershed FP Planning $200,000 

Tennessee Hurricane Creek FP, M&I Construction $300,000 

North Fork Forked Deer FP Design $1,800,000 

Texas Choctaw Creek FP Construction $18,300,000 

Ecleto Creek FP Construction $10,000,000 

Trinity—Chambers Creek FP Remedial $3,000,000 

Trinity—Pilot Grove FP Remedial $3,000,000 

Virginia North Fork Powell River LT, WQ Design/Construction $500,000 

Fiscal Year 2020 

Arkansas Bayou Meto AWM Construction $6,250,000 

Grand Prairie AWM Construction $6,250,000 

California Lllagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $127,250,000 

Lower Calaveras—Mormon FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $21,500,000 

Lower Llagas Creek FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $3,000,000 

Lower Silver Creek FP, LT, WQ Construction $7,000,000 

McCoy Wash FP, LT, WQ Construction $11,500,000 

Mill FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $14,060,000 

New Site FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $3,400,000 

Oasis FP, LT, WQ Construction $91,250,000 

Upper Calaveras FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $36,380,000 

Upper Deer—Upper White FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $32,660,000 

Upper Dry FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $11,270,000 

Upper Poso FP, LT, AWM, M&I, WQ Construction $25,220,000 

Hawaii Kahaluu FP, LT, REC Construction $800,000 

Lower Hamakua Ditch AWM, WQ Design/Construction $1,500,000 

Wailuku—Alenaio FP Construction $2,600,000 

Waimanalo AWM Construction $800,000 

Iowa East Fork of the Grand River FP Construction $1,257,000 

Mill Creek LT Design/Construction $353,000 

Mosquito of Harrison FP Design/Construction $118,000 

Kansas North Middle Forks Wolf—Site 15–4 FP Design $27,900 

North Middle Forks Wolf—Site 15–5 FP Design $29,500 

North Middle Forks Wolf—Site 19–8 FP Design $24,300 

Upper Black Vermillion—Site 14 FP Construction $393,000 

Upper Black Vermillion—Site 227 FP Construction $446,500 

Massachusetts Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration 

Project 

LT, F&W, WQ Construction $3,000,000 

Mississippi Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Oaklimeter LT Construction $500,000 

Ltl Tallahatchie—Upper Tallahatchie LT Construction $500,000 

Piney Creek GCS LT Construction $750,000 

Town Creek LT Construction $250,000 

Yazoo—Skuna River LT Construction $500,000 

Missouri Big Creek Hurricane Ck FP Construction $1,000,000 

East Locust Creek AWM, FP, F&W Construction $12,000,000 

East Yellow Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

West Fork of Big Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

N. Mariana Islands Kagman Watershed FP, LT, AWM Construction $250,000 

Nebraska Papio D–31 FP Construction $1,500,000 

Papio D–78 FP Construction $1,500,000 

New York Ashokan LT Design/Construction $30,000 

Lower Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Moonda/Saterly Creek FP Construction $1,000,000 

Neversink LT Design/Construction $10,000 

Pepacton LT Design/Construction $180,000 

Roundout LT Design/Construction $20,000 

Schoharie LT Design/Construction $100,000 

Upper Cannonsville LT Design/Construction $330,000 

Oklahoma Bear Creek Site 1 FP Design $500,000 

Brushy Peaceable 5 FP Construction $2,250,000 

103 

Appendix A: Identified Watershed Project Needs, FY 2016–2020—Continued 

State Project Name Eligible Purpose(s) Project Status Estimated 

Funding 

Cotton Coon Mission 14 FP Construction $2,100,000 

Cotton Coon Mission Site 13 FP Design $525,000 

Jack Creek 6 FP Construction $2,500,000 

Kickappo Nations 8 FP Construction $1,900,000 

Little Washita River Site 37 FP Design $475,000 

Oak Creek 9 FP Remedial $175,000 

Stillwater 35 FP Remedial $250,000 

Turkey 11 FP Remedial $210,000 

Upper Black Bear 51 FP Remedial $310,000 

Upper Blue River 47 FP Construction $2,100,000 

Upper Muddy Boggy 19 FP Construction $2,250,000 

Upper Muddy Boggy 26 FP Remedial $125,000 

Upper Muddy Boggy 30 FP Design $500,000 

Upper Red Rock 42 FP Remedial $250,000 

Upper Red Rock Site 7 FP Construction $1,750,000 

Wildhorse Creek Site 88 FP Design $475,000 

Oregon Alder Slope Irrigation AWM, WQ Construction $176,000 

Arnold Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $800,000 

Central Oregon Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $1,700,000 

Champoeg Watershed AWM, WQ Construction $660,000 

North Prairie Creek Irriga[ti]on AWM, WQ, LT Construction $110,000 

North Unit Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $850,000 

Ochoco Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $650,000 

Swalley Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Planning $50,000 

Three Sisters Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Construction $750,000 

Tumalo Irrigation District AWM, M&I, WQ, F&W Design $1,000,000 

Twilight Water Quality WQ, AWM Design $30,000 

Upper Grande Ronde Watershed LT, WQ Planning $40,000 

Pennsylvania Bentley Creek FP Construction $300,000 

Little Toby Creek WQ Construction $50,000 

Mill Creek WQ Construction $50,000 

unnamed watershed FP Planning $1,000,000 

Tennessee North Fork Forked Deer FP Construction $2,000,000 

Texas Big Creek (Tri-County) FP, M&I, F&W Construction $10,000,000 

Big Creek (Tri-County) FP, M&I, F&W Construction $10,000,000 

Middle Colorado—Southwest Laterals FP Construction $2,700,000 

Middle Colorado—Upper Pecan Bayou FP, M&I, F&W Construction $5,400,000 

Trinity—Richland Creek FP Remedial $3,000,000 

Virginia North Fork Powell River LT, WQ Design/Construction $500,000 

West Virginia Big Sandy—Pond Creek FP, WQ, LT Planning $500,000 

Grand Total $1,404,018,440 

Eligible Purpose Key: 

FP—Flood Prevention. 

LT—Land Treatment/Watershed Protection. 

F&W—Public Recreation. 

AWM—Agricultural Water Management. 

M&I—Municipal and Industrial Water Supply. 

WQ—Water Quality Management. 

Appendix B: Watershed Operations Appropriations, 1947–2015 

Fiscal Year Amount Funded Fiscal Year Amount Funded 

1947 $2,100,000 1982 $176,611,000 

1948 3,000,000 1983 181,295,000 

1949 6,000,000 1984 175,000,000 

1950 9,500,000 1985 175,325,850 

1951 10,315,000 1986 176,691,000 

1952 6,559,600 1987 161,182,000 

1953 7,750,000 1988 161,679,000 

1954 12,000,000 1989 161,797,400 

1955 14,732,000 1990 161,855,000 

1956 22,000,000 1991 163,163,000 

1957 29,500,000 1992 173,885,000 

1958 38,720,000 1993 187,162,000 

1959 43,500,000 1994 199,236,000 

1960 40,750,000 1995 70,000,000 

1961 56,370,000 1996 100,000,000 

1962 78,787,000 1997 101,036,000 

1963 86,702,200 1998 101,036,000 

1964 89,072,000 1999 91,643,000 

1965 97,602,000 2000 99,443,000 

1966 91,973,000 2001 99,224,000 

1967 95,826,100 2002 106,590,000 

1968 96,156,000 2003 109,285,000 

1969 82,132,000 2004 86,487,000 

1970 90,770,000 2005 74,971,000 

1971 100,334,000 2006 75,000,000 

104 

Appendix B: Watershed Operations Appropriations, 1947–2015—Continued 

Fiscal Year Amount Funded Fiscal Year Amount Funded 

1972 132,099,000 2007 0 

1973 115,675,500 2008 29,790,000 

1974 121,674,000 2009 24,289,000 

1975 109,641,600 * 2009 145,000,000 

1976 167,076,000 2010 30,000,000 

1977 129,649,000 2011 0 

1978 143,280,000 2012 0 

1979 148,107,000 2013 0 

1980 152,244,000 2014 0 

1981 177,024,000 2015 0 

Total Funding $6,207,297,250 

* (ARRA). 

Appendix C: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act—P.L. 83–566 

Section 1001. Declaration of policy. 

Section 1002. Definitions 

Section 1003. Assistance to local organizations. 

Section 1003a. Cost share assistance. 

Section 1004. Conditions for Federal assistance. 

Section 1005. Works of improvement. 

Section 1006. Cooperative programs. 

Section 1006a. Loans or advancements for financing local share of costs; repayment; interest; maximum amount. 

Section 1006b. Territorial application. 

Section 1007. Authorization of appropriations. 

Section 1008. Notification of Secretary of the Interior of approval of assistance; 

surveys and investigations; report and recommendations; consideration; cost of 

surveys, investigations and reports. 

Section 1009. Joint investigations and surveys by Secretary of the Army and 

Secretary of Agriculture; reports to Congress. 

Section 1010. Data. 

Section 1011. Watershed restoration and enhancement agreements. 

Section 1012. Rehabilitation of structural measures near, at, or past their evaluated life expectancy. 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Sec. 1001. Declaration of policy. 

Erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds of the rivers and 

streams of the United States, causing loss of life and damage to property, constitute 

a menace to the national welfare; and it is the sense of Congress that the Federal 

Government should cooperate with states and their political subdivisions, soil or 

water conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and other local 

public agencies for the purpose of preventing such damages, of furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and the conservation and 

utilization of land and thereby of preserving, protecting, and improving the nation’s 

land and water resources and the quality of the environment. 

Sec. 1002. Definitions. 

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall mean: 

The ’’Secretary’’—the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States. 

‘‘Works of improvement’’—any undertaking for— 

(1) flood prevention (including structural and land treatment measures), 

(2) the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, or 

(3) the conservation and proper utilization of land, in watershed or subwatershed area not exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand acres and not 

including any single structure which provides more than twelve thousand 

five hundred acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity, and more than 

twenty-five thousand acre-feet of total capacity. No appropriation shall be 

made for any plan involving an estimated Federal contribution to construcVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\115-07\25913.TXT BRIAN
105 

tion costs in excess of $5,000,000, or which includes any structure which 

provides more than twenty-five hundred acre-feet of total capacity unless 

such plan has been approved by resolutions adopted by the appropriate 

Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives: Provided, That in 

the case of any plan involving no single structure providing more than 

4,000 acre-feet of total capacity the appropriate Committees shall be the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and the 

Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and in the case 

of any plan involving any single structure of more than 4,000 acre-feet of 

total capacity the appropriate Committees shall be the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Public 

Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives, respectively. 

Each project must contain benefits directly related to agriculture, including 

rural communities that account for at least 20 percent of the total benefits 

of the project. A number of such sub-watersheds when they are component 

parts of a larger watershed may be planned together when the local sponsoring organizations so desire. 

‘‘Local organization’’—any state, political subdivision thereof, soil or water 

conservation district, flood prevention or control district, or combinations thereof, or any other agency having authority under state law to carry out, maintain 

and operate the works of improvement; or any irrigation or reservoir company, 

water users’ association, or similar organization having such authority and not 

being operated for profit that may be approved by the Secretary; or any Indian 

Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 450b of title 25, having authority under Federal, state, or Indian Tribal law to carry out, maintain, and 

operate the works of improvement. 

Sec. 1003. Assistance to local organizations. 

In order to assist local organizations in preparing and carrying out plans for 

works of improvement, the Secretary is authorized, upon application of local organizations if such application has been submitted to, and not disapproved within 45 

days by, the state agency having supervisory responsibility over programs provided 

for in this chapter, or by the Governor if there is no state agency having such responsibility— 

(1) to conduct such investigations and surveys as may be necessary to prepare 

plans for works of improvement; 

(2) to prepare plans and estimates required for adequate engineering evaluation; 

(3) to make allocations of costs to the various purposes to show the basis of 

such allocations and to determine whether benefits exceed costs; 

(4) to cooperate and enter into agreements with and to furnish financial and 

other assistance to local organizations: Provided, That, for the land-treatment 

measures, the Federal assistance shall not exceed the rate of assistance for 

similar practices under existing national programs; 

(5) to obtain the cooperation and assistance of other Federal agencies in carrying out the purposes of this section; 

(6) to enter into agreements with landowners, operators, and occupiers, individually or collectively, based on conservation plans of such landowners, operators, and occupiers which are developed in cooperation with and approved by 

the soil and water conservation district in which the land described in the 

agreement is situated, to be carried out on such land during a period of not to 

exceed 10 years, providing for changes in cropping systems and land uses and 

for the installation of soil and water conservation practices and measures needed to conserve and develop the soil, water, woodland, wildlife, energy, and recreation resources of and enhance the water quality of lands within the area included in plans for works of improvement, as provided for in such plans, including watershed or sub-watershed work plans in connection with the eleven watershed improvement programs authorized by section 13 of the Act of December 

22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended and supplemented. Applications for assistance in developing such conservation plans shall be made in writing to the soil 

and water conservation district involved, and the proposed agreement shall be 

reviewed by such district. In return for such agreements by landowners, operators, and occupiers the Secretary shall agree to share the costs of carrying out 

those practices and measures set forth in the agreement for which he determines that cost-sharing is appropriate and in the public interest. The portion 

of such costs, including labor, to be shared shall be that part which the Secretary determines is appropriate and in the public interest for the carrying out 

106 

of the practices and measures set forth in the agreement, except that the Federal assistance shall not exceed the rate of assistance for similar practices and 

measures under existing national programs. The Secretary may terminate any 

agreement with a landowner, operator, or occupier by mutual agreement if the 

Secretary determines that such termination would be in the public interest, and 

may agree to such modifications of agreements, previously entered into hereunder, as he deems desirable to carry out the purposes of this paragraph or to 

facilitate the practical administration of the agreements provided for herein. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary, to the extent he 

deems it desirable to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, may provide in 

any agreement hereunder for (1) preservation for a period not to exceed the period covered by the agreement and an equal period thereafter of the cropland, 

crop acreage, and allotment history applicable to land covered by the agreement 

for the purpose of any Federal program under which such history is used as a 

basis for an allotment or other limitation on the production of any crop; or (2) 

surrender of any such history and allotments. 

Sec. 1003a. Cost-share assistance. 

(a) EASEMENTS.—The Secretary may provide cost-share assistance to project sponsors to enable such sponsors to acquire perpetual wetland or floodplain conservation 

easements to perpetuate, restore and enhance the natural capability of wetlands 

and floodplains to retain excessive floodwaters, improve water quality and quantity, 

and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. 

(b) AMOUNT.—The Secretary shall require that project sponsors of watershed 

projects provide up to 50 percent of the cost of acquiring easements under subsection (a) of this section. 

Sec. 1004. Conditions for Federal assistance. 

The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal assistance for the 

installation of works of improvement that local organizations shall— 

(1) acquire, or with respect to interests in land to be acquired by condemnation provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that they will acquire, 

without cost to the Federal Government from funds appropriated for the purposes of this chapter, such land, easements, or rights-of-way as will be needed 

in connection with works of improvement installed with Federal assistance: Provided, That when a local organization agrees to operate and maintain any reservoir or other area included in a plan for public fish and wildlife or recreational development, the Secretary shall be authorized to bear not to exceed 

1⁄2 of the costs of (a) the land, easements, or rights-of-way acquired or to be acquired by the local organization for such reservoir or other area, and (b) minimum basic facilities needed for public health and safety, access to, and use of 

such reservoir or other area for such purposes: Provided further, That the Secretary shall be authorized to participate in recreational development in any watershed project only to the extent that the need therefore is demonstrated in 

accordance with standards established by him, taking into account the anticipated man-days of use of the projected recreational development and giving consideration to the availability within the region of existing water-based outdoor 

recreational developments: Provided further, That the Secretary shall be authorized to participate in not more than one recreational development in a watershed project containing less than seventy-five thousand acres, or two such developments in a project containing between seventy-five thousand and one hundred and fifty thousand acres, or three such developments in projects exceeding 

one hundred and fifty thousand acres: Provided further, That when the Secretary and a local organization have agreed that the immediate acquisition by 

the local organization of land, easements, or rights-of-way is advisable for the 

preservation of sites for works of improvement included in a plan from encroachment by residential, commercial, industrial, or other development, the 

Secretary shall be authorized to advance to the local organization from funds 

appropriated for construction of works of improvement the amounts required for 

the acquisition of such land, easements or rights-of-way; and, except where such 

costs are to be borne by the Secretary, such advance shall be repaid by the local 

organization, with interest, prior to construction of the works of improvement, 

for credit to such construction funds: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 

be authorized to bear an amount not to exceed 1⁄2 of the costs of the land, easements, or rights-of-way acquired or to be acquired by the local organization for 

mitigation of fish and wildlife habitat losses, and that such acquisition is not 

limited to the confines of the watershed project boundaries; 

107 

(2) assume— 

(A) such proportionate share, as is determined by the Secretary to be equitable in consideration of national needs and assistance authorized for 

similar purposes under other Federal programs, of the costs of installing 

any works of improvement, involving Federal assistance (excluding engineering costs), which is applicable to the agricultural phases of the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water or for fish and 

wildlife development, recreational development, ground water recharge, 

water quality management, or the conservation and proper utilization of 

land: Provided, That works of improvement for water quality management 

shall consist primarily of water storage capacity in reservoirs for regulation 

of streamflow, except that any such storage and water releases shall not be 

provided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source, and shall be consistent with standards and 

regulations adopted by the Water Resources Council on Federal cost-sharing for water quality management, and 

(B) all of the cost of installing any portion of such works applicable to 

other purposes except that any part of the construction cost (including engineering costs) applicable to flood prevention and features relating thereto 

shall be borne by the Federal Government and paid for by the Secretary 

out of funds appropriated for the purposes of this chapter: Provided, That, 

in addition to and without limitation on the authority of the Secretary to 

make loans or advancements under section 1006a of this title, the Secretary 

may pay for any storage of water for present or anticipated future demands 

or needs for municipal or industrial water included in any reservoir structure constructed or modified under the provisions of this chapter as hereinafter provided: Provided further, That the cost of water storage to meet future demands may not exceed 30 per centum of the total estimated cost of 

such reservoir structure and the local organization shall give reasonable assurances, and there is evidence, that such demands for the use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit repayment within the life of the reservoir structure of the cost of such storage: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall determine prior to initiation of construction or modification of any reservoir structure including such water supply 

storage that there are adequate assurances by the local organization or by 

an agency of the state having authority to give such assurances, that the 

Secretary will be reimbursed the cost of water supply storage for anticipated future demands, and that the local organization will pay not less 

than 50 per centum of the cost of storage for present water supply demands: And provided further, That the cost to be borne by the local organization for anticipated future demands may be repaid within the life of the 

reservoir structure but in no event to exceed fifty years after the reservoir 

structure is first used for the storage of water for anticipated future water 

supply demands, except that— 

(1) no reimbursement of the cost of such water supply storage for anticipated future demands need be made until such supply is first used, 

and 

(2) no interest shall be charged on the cost of such water-supply storage for anticipated future demands until such supply is first used, but 

in no case shall the interest-free period exceed 10 years. The interest 

rate used for purposes of computing the interest on the unpaid balance 

shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 1006a 

of this title. 

(3) make arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary for defraying 

costs of operating and maintaining such works of improvement, in accordance with regulations presented by the Secretary of Agriculture; 

(4) acquire, or provide assurance that landowners or water users 

have acquired, such water rights, pursuant to state law, as may be 

needed in the installation and operation of the work of improvement; 

(5) obtain agreements to carry out recommended soil conservation 

measures and proper farm plans from owners of not less than 50 per 

centum of the land situated in the drainage area above each retention 

reservoir to be installed with Federal assistance; and 

(6) submit a plan of repayment satisfactory to the Secretary for any 

loan or advancement made under the provisions of section 1006a of this 

title. 

108 

Sec. 1005. Works of improvement. 

(1) ENGINEERING AND OTHER SERVICES; REIMBURSEMENT; ADVANCES.—At such 

time as the Secretary and the interested local organization have agreed on a plan 

for works of improvement, and the Secretary has determined that the benefits exceed the costs, and the local organization has met the requirements for participation 

in carrying out the works of improvement as set forth in section 1004 of this title, 

the local organization may secure engineering and other services, including the design, preparation of contracts and specifications, awarding of contracts, and supervision of construction, in connection with such works of improvement, by retaining 

or employing a professional engineer or engineers satisfactory to the Secretary or 

may request the Secretary to provide such services: Provided, That if the local organization elects to employ a professional engineer or engineers, the Secretary shall 

reimburse the local organization for the costs of such engineering and other services 

secured by the local organization as are properly chargeable to such works of improvement in an amount not to exceed the amount agreed upon in the plan for 

works of improvement or any modification thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary may advance such amounts as may be necessary to pay for such services, but 

such advances with respect to any works of improvement shall not exceed five per 

centum of the estimated installation cost of such works. 

(2) FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION; REQUEST BY LOCAL ORGANIZATION.—Except as to the 

installation of works of improvement on Federal lands, the Secretary shall not construct or enter into any contract for the construction of any structure: Provided, 

That, if requested to do so by the local organization, the Secretary may enter into 

contracts for the construction of structures. 

(3) TRANSMISSION OF CERTAIN PLANS TO CONGRESS.—Whenever the estimated 

Federal contribution to the construction costs of works of improvement in the plan 

for any watershed or sub-watershed area shall exceed $5,000,000 or the works of 

improvement include any structure having a total capacity in excess of twenty-five 

hundred acre-feet, the Secretary shall transmit a copy of the plan and the justification therefore to the Congress through the President. 

(4) TRANSMISSION OF CERTAIN PLANS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS.—Any 

plans for works of improvement involving an estimated Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of $5,000,000 or including any structure having a total capacity in excess of twenty-five hundred acre-feet 

(a) which includes works of improvement for reclamation or irrigation, or 

which affects public or other lands or wildlife under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, 

(b) which includes Federal assistance for floodwater detention structures, 

(c) which includes features which may affect the public health, or 

(d) which includes measures for control or abatement of water pollution, shall 

be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, respectively, for his views and recommendations at 

least thirty days prior to transmission of the plan to the Congress through the 

President. The views and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior, the 

Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, if received by the Secretary prior to the expiration of the above thirty-day period, shall accompany 

the plan transmitted by the Secretary to the Congress through the President. 

(5) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—Prior to any Federal participation in the works of 

improvement under this chapter, the President shall issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of this chapter, 

and to assure the coordination of the work authorized under this chapter and related work of other agencies, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army. 

Sec. 1006 Cooperative Programs. 

The Secretary is authorized in cooperation with other Federal and with states and 

local agencies to make investigations and surveys of the watershed of rivers and 

other waterways as a basis for the development of coordinated programs. In areas 

where the programs of the Secretary of Agriculture may affect public or other lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior 

is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture in the planning and development of works or programs for such lands. 

Sec. 1006a Loans or advancements for financing local share of costs; repayment; interest; maximum amount. 

109 

The Secretary is authorized to make loans or advancements 

(a) to local organizations to finance the local share of costs of carrying out 

works of improvement provided for in this chapter, and 

(b) to state and local agencies to finance the local share of costs of carrying 

out works of improvement (as defined in section 1002 of this title) in connection 

with the eleven watershed improvement programs authorized by section 13 of 

the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended and supplemented: 

Provided, That the works of improvement in connection with said eleven watershed improvement programs shall be integral parts of watershed or sub-watershed work plans agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the concerned 

state and local agencies. A loan or advance under this section shall be made 

under a contract or agreement that provides, under such terms and conditions 

as the Secretary considers appropriate, for the repayment of the loan or advance 

in not more than 50 years from the date when the principal benefits of the 

works of improvement first become available, with interest at a rate not to exceed the current market yield for outstanding municipal obligations with remaining periods to maturity comparable to the average maturity for the loan, 

adjusted to the nearest 1⁄8 of 1 percent. With respect to any single plan for 

works of improvement, the amount of any such loan or advancement shall not 

exceed $10,000,000. 

Sec. 1006b Territorial application. 

The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

Sec. 1007. Authorization of appropriations. 

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 

to carry out the purposes of this chapter, such sums to remain available until expended. No appropriation hereafter available for assisting local organizations in preparing and carrying out plans for works of improvement under the provisions of section 1003 of this title or clause (a) of section 1006a of this title shall be available 

for any works of improvement pursuant to this chapter or otherwise in connection 

with the eleven watershed improvement programs authorized by section 13 of the 

Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended and supplemented, or for making loans or advancements to state and local agencies as authorized by clause (b) 

of section 1006a of this title. 

Sec. 1008 Notification of Secretary of the Interior of approval of assistance; surveys and investigations; report and recommendations; consideration; cost of surveys; investigations and reports. 

When the Secretary approves the furnishing of assistance to a local organization 

in preparing a plan for works of improvement as provided for in section 1003 of this 

title: 

(1) The Secretary shall so notify the Secretary of the Interior in order that 

the latter, as he desires, may make surveys and investigations and prepare a 

report with recommendations concerning the conservation and development of 

wildlife resources and participate, under arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary of Agriculture, in the preparation of a plan for works of improvement 

that is acceptable to the local organization and the Secretary of Agriculture. 

(2) Full consideration shall be given to the recommendations contained in any 

such report of the Secretary of the Interior as he may submit to the Secretary 

of Agriculture prior to the time the local organization and the Secretary of Agriculture have agreed on a plan for works of improvement. The plan shall include 

such of the technically and economically feasible works of improvement for wildlife purposes recommended in the report by the Secretary of the Interior as are 

acceptable to, and agreed to by, the local organization and the Secretary of Agriculture, and such report of the Secretary of the Interior shall, if requested by 

the Secretary of the Interior, accompany the plan for works of improvement 

when it is submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture for approval or transmitted 

to the Congress through the President. 

(3) The cost of making surveys and investigations and of preparing reports 

concerning the conservation and development of wildlife resources shall be 

borne by the Secretary of the Interior out of funds appropriated to his Department. 

Sec. 1009 Joint investigations and surveys by Secretary of the Army and 

Secretary of Agriculture; reports to Congress. 

110 

The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Agriculture, when authorized to 

do so by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate or the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House 

of Representatives, are authorized and directed to make joint investigations and 

surveys in accordance with their existing authorities of watershed areas in the 

United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and to prepare joint reports on 

such investigations and surveys setting forth their recommendations for the installation of the works of improvement needed for flood prevention or the conservation, 

development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for flood control and allied purposes. Such joint reports shall be submitted to the Congress through the President 

for adoption and authorization by the Congress of the recommended works of improvement: Provided, That the project authorization procedure established by this 

chapter shall not be affected. 

Sec. 1010 Data. 

The Secretary shall collect and maintain data on a national and state by state 

basis concerning— 

(1) expenditures for the individual flood control and conservation measures 

for which assistance is provided under this chapter; and 

(2) the expected flood control or environmental (including soil erosion) benefits that will result from the implementation of such measures. 

Sec. 1011. Watershed restoration and enhancement agreements. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For Fiscal Year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter, appropriations made for the Bureau of Land Management may be used by the Secretary of 

the Interior for the purpose of entering into cooperative agreements with the heads 

of other Federal agencies, Tribal, state, and local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and landowners for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife habitat and other resources on public or private land and the reduction of risk from natural disaster where public safety is threatened that benefit 

these resources on public lands within the watershed. 

(b) DIRECT AND INDIRECT WATERSHED AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary of the Interior may enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement agreement— 

(1) directly with a willing private landowner; or 

(2) indirectly through an agreement with a state, local, or Tribal government 

or other public entity, educational institution, or private nonprofit organization. 

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—In order for the Secretary to enter into a watershed 

restoration and enhancement agreement— 

(1) the agreement shall— 

(A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the Secretary and the landowner; 

(B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit the fish, wildlife, and 

other biotic resources on public land in the watershed; 

(C) authorize the provision of technical assistance by the Secretary in the 

planning of management activities that will further the purposes of the 

agreement; 

(D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing the agreement among 

the Federal Government, the Landowner, and other entities, as mutually 

agreed on by the affected interests; and 

(E) ensure that any expenditure by the Secretary pursuant to the agreement is determined by the Secretary to be in the public interest; and 

(2) the Secretary may require such other terms and conditions as are necessary to protect the public investment on private lands, provided such terms 

and conditions are mutually agreed to by the Secretary and other landowners, 

state and local governments or both. 

Sec. 1012. Rehabilitation of structural measures near, at, or past their 

evaluated life expectancy. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) REHABILITATION.—The term ’’rehabilitation’’, with respect to a structural 

measure constructed as part of a covered water resource project, means the 

completion of all work necessary to extend the service life of the structural 

measure and meet applicable safety and performance standards. This may include: 

111 

(A) protecting the integrity of the structural measure or prolonging the 

useful life of the structural measure beyond the original evaluated life expectancy; 

(B) correcting damage to the structural measure from a catastrophic 

event; 

(C) correcting the deterioration of structural components that are deteriorating at an abnormal rate; 

(D) upgrading the structural measure to meet changed land use conditions in the watershed served by the structural measure or changed safety 

criteria applicable to the structural measure; or 

(E) decommissioning the structure, if requested by the local organization. 

(2) COVERED WATER RESOURCE PROJECT.—The term ’’covered water resource 

project’’ means a work of improvement carried out under any of the following: 

(A) This chapter 

(B) Section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (Public Law 78–534; 58 

Stat. 905). 

(C) The pilot watershed program authorized under the heading ’’Flood 

Prevention’’ of the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1954 (Public Law 156; 67 Stat. 214). 

(D) Subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 

U.S.C. 3451 et seq.; commonly known as the Resource Conservation and 

Development Program). 

(3) STRUCTURAL MEASURE.—The term ’’structural measure’’ means a physical 

improvement that impounds water, commonly known as a dam, which was constructed as part of a covered water resource project, including the impoundment 

area and flood pool. 

(b) COST-SHARE ASSISTANCE FOR REHABILITATION.— 

(1) ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary may provide financial assistance 

to a local organization to cover a portion of the total costs incurred for the rehabilitation of structural measures originally constructed as part of a covered 

water resource project. The total costs of rehabilitation include the costs associated with all components of the rehabilitation project, including acquisition of 

land, easements, and rights-of-ways, rehabilitation project administration, the 

provision of technical assistance, contracting, and construction costs, except that 

the local organization shall be responsible for securing all land, easements, or 

rights-of-ways necessary for the project. 

(2) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE; LIMITATIONS.—The amount of Federal funds that 

may be made available under this subsection to a local organization for construction of a particular rehabilitation project shall be equal to 65 percent of 

the total rehabilitation costs, but not to exceed 100 percent of actual construction costs incurred in the rehabilitation. However, the local organization shall 

be responsible for the costs of water, mineral, and other resource rights and all 

Federal, state, and local permits. 

(3) RELATION TO LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.—As a condition 

on entering into an agreement to provide financial assistance under this subsection, the Secretary, working in concert with the affected unit or units of general purpose local government, may require that proper zoning or other developmental regulations are in place in the watershed in which the structural measures to be rehabilitated under the agreement are located so that— 

(A) the completed rehabilitation project is not quickly rendered inadequate by additional development; and 

(B) society can realize the full benefits of the rehabilitation investment. 

(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATERSHED PROJECT REHABILITATION.—The Secretary, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, may provide 

technical assistance in planning, designing, and implementing rehabilitation 

projects should a local organization request such assistance. Such assistance may 

consist of specialists in such fields as engineering, geology, soils, agronomy, biology, 

hydraulics, hydrology, economics, water quality, and contract administration. 

(d) PROHIBITED USE.— 

(1) PERFORMANCE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Rehabilitation assistance provided under this section may not be used to perform operation and 

maintenance activities specified in the agreement for the covered water resource 

project entered into between the Secretary and the local organization responsible for the works of improvement. Such operation and maintenance activities 

112 

shall remain the responsibility of the local organization, as provided in the 

project work plan. 

(2) RENEGOTIATION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), as part of the provision 

of financial assistance under subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary may 

renegotiate the original agreement for the covered water resource project entered into between the Secretary and the local organization regarding responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project when the rehabilitation 

is finished. 

(e) APPLICATION FOR REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE.—A local organization may 

apply to the Secretary for technical and financial assistance under this section if the 

application has also been submitted to and approved by the state agency having supervisory responsibility over the covered water resource project at issue or, if there 

is no state agency having such responsibility, by the Governor of the state. The Secretary shall request the state dam safety officer (or equivalent state official) to be 

involved in the application process if state permits or approvals are required. The 

rehabilitation of structural measures shall meet standards established by the Secretary and address other dam safety issues. At the request of the local organization, 

personnel of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture may assist in preparing applications for assistance. 

(f) RANKING OF REQUESTS FOR REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary shall 

establish such system of approving rehabilitation requests, recognizing that such requests will be received throughout the fiscal year and subject to the availability of 

funds to carry out this section, as is necessary for proper administration by the Department of Agriculture and equitable for all local organizations. The approval process shall be in writing, and made known to all local organizations and appropriate 

state agencies. 

(g) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may 

not approve a rehabilitation request if the need for rehabilitation of the structure 

is the result of a lack of adequate maintenance by the party responsible for the 

maintenance. 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary to provide financial and technical assistance under this section— 

(1) $5,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2001; 

(2) $10,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2002; 

(3) $15,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2003; 

(4) $25,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2004; and 

(5) $35,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2005. 

(i) ASSESSMENT OF REHABILITATION NEEDS.—The Secretary, in concert with the 

responsible state agencies, shall conduct an assessment of the rehabilitation needs 

of covered water resource projects in all states in which such projects are located. 

(j) RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTS.— 

(1) SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall maintain a data base to track the benefits derived from rehabilitation projects supported under this section and the expenditures made under this section. On the basis of such data and the reports 

submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress an annual report providing the status of activities conducted under this 

section. 

(2) GRANT RECIPIENTS.—Not later than 90 days after the completion of a specific rehabilitation project for which assistance is provided under this section, 

the local organization that received the assistance shall make a report to the 

Secretary giving the status of any rehabilitation effort undertaken using financial assistance provided under this section. 

Æ