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

27–317PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–186 

OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMY CORPS’ 

MANAGEMENT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND WASTE 

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 22, 2017 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY

OVERSIGHT

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota, Chairman 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio) 

CORY A. BOOKER, NEW JERSEY, Ranking 

Member 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

AUGUST 22, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota .................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 38 

WITNESSES 

Ponganis, David, Programs Director, U.S Army Corps of Engineers .................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Harding, Hon. Steve, Mayor, City of Pierre, Pierre, SD ...................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Goodman, Jeanne, Chief Engineer, South Dakota Water Program, Pierre, 

SD .......................................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Lepisto, Paul, Regional Conservation Coordinator, Izaak Walton League of 

America, Pierre, SD ............................................................................................. 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

(1) 

Oversight of the Army Corps’ Management of the 

Missouri River 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The following hearing was taken at the South Dakota State Capitol, Room 413, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota, on 

the 22nd day of August, 2017, commencing at 10 o’clock a.m., before Cheri McComsey Wittler, a Notary Public, Registered Professional Reporter, and Certified Realtime Reporter within and for the 

State of South Dakota. Hon. Mike Rounds (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator Rounds. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Good morning, everyone. Testifying on our first 

panel today is Mr. David Ponganis. He is the Director of Programs 

for the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

He is here with us today, and we’re going to welcome him.I would 

like to give an opening statement, and I would explain to everybody that the way that this process works is that we will also allow 

statements for the record as well. A number of you may very well 

want to do that. That statement time period will be open for a period of two weeks. We’ll also have statements entered into by a 

number of other United States Senators who wish to have their 

thoughts included in this testimony as well. 

The Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, 

Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight is meeting today to 

conduct a field hearing entitled Oversight of the U.S. Army Corp’s 

Management of the Missouri River. 

I’d like to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I look 

forward to hearing their testimony. It is fitting that we would hold 

this hearing here as we approach the bicentennial of the settlement 

of Ft. Pierre. Since its early days as a trading post in the 19th Century, the Missouri River has been a vital component of the lives of 

the people living along the riverbank. 

The United States Army Corps is responsible for managing the 

Missouri River in a way that effectively maintains the River’s eight 

authorized purposes: Flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27317.TXT VERN
2 

life management.The Missouri River plays a vital role in the economy and livelihoods of those of us living in communities along the 

River. We depend on the River for drinking water, recreation, and 

agriculture. Proper management of the Missouri is an essential 

component to the successes of our cities and towns.Proper management of the Missouri requires the Corps to work closely and communicate extensively with stakeholders, such as state and local 

governments, and understand the needs of the communities within 

the Missouri River Basin. 

After the 2011 flood in which communities all along the Missouri 

as well as our State Capitol of Pierre suffered millions of dollars 

in damage to homes, city streets, sewage systems, and parks, citizens and local government officials quickly focused on what steps 

should be taken to make certain this type of destruction never happens again. 

Because one of the driving factors of the destruction was the lack 

of advanced notice to the residents who received less than one 

week to prepare for the rising flood waters, a 2014 Water Resource 

Reform Bill, also known as WRRDA, attempted to provide the 

Army Corps with additional resources to increase their flood monitoring capabilities. This legislation authorized the Army Corps to 

coordinate with various government agencies to administer a soil 

moisture and snowpack monitoring network and maintain 

snowpack monitoring sites in the Upper Missouri River Basin. 

At a March 2016 subcommittee hearing titled Five Years From 

The Flood: Oversight of the Army Corps’ Management of the Missouri River and Suggestions For Improvement, which we held in 

North Sioux City, we learned that the Army Corps had made little 

progress towards implementation of the snowpack monitoring network because they had failed to submit an appropriations request 

to Congress to fund the program. Additionally, we learned the 

Corps was unclear as to what agencies should take the lead on implementing the program, which also prevented them from moving 

forward with the snowpack monitoring network. As a result of this 

information, I had language included in the 2016 WRRDA bill that 

directed the U.S. Army Corps to be the lead agency for coordinating the soil moisture and snowpack monitoring network in the 

Upper Missouri River Basin. 

Additionally, I was able to have an amendment included in the 

2017 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that would 

have provided the Corps with $2 million to begin implementation 

of a snowpack monitoring program. 

Throughout the 2017 runoff season there was a noticeable improvement in communication between the Corps and stakeholders 

in the Upper Missouri River Basin. I was encouraged to see the 

Corps’s effort to hold stakeholder conference calls, public meetings, 

and post regular snowpack level updates on their website. 

I look forward to receiving an update from the Corps and the 

state and local governments regarding their views of the coordination among stakeholders during this past runoff season. The Corps, 

in conjunction with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, is also responsible for administering the Missouri River Recovery Program which 

aims to replace the lost habitat of three threatened and endangered 

species along the Missouri River. The program seeks to coordinate 

3 

with local stakeholder groups, in particular the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee, to develop sandbar and wetland 

habitat to conserve the pallid sturgeon, the least tern, and the piping plover. 

A more recent issue we have been confronted with has been the 

rapidly rising and falling water levels in Lake Sharpe that have occurred over the past several months. These fluctuating water levels 

have been responsible for property damage, and there are concerns 

this may also impact the fish spawn that recreational fishermen 

along the Missouri depend on for a successful fishing season. 

I hope to hear from the Corps that these water releases are being 

done responsibly and with consideration of the various interests 

along the River. A healthy, well managed Missouri River is critical 

to the communities surrounding it. Today we will hear testimony 

from both the U.S. Army Corps and state and local government officials on the status of the management of the River and any potential improvements that can be made to better meet the needs of 

both of surrounding communities and the Corps. 

Each witness will have five minutes to present their testimony, 

and I will follow up with questions to the witnesses. I’d like to 

again thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. I will also share, once again, that 

their full statements will be made a part of the record of the meeting. 

And, with that, I will simply say to Mr. Dave Ponganis, welcome 

once again. We had a good chance to visit with you at the previous 

meetings, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts today. Before I have Mr. Ponganis begin, I just wanted to take a moment 

to acknowledge Ms. Jodi Farhat who is with us today. As she nears 

her retirement from the federal service this September, Jodi has 

served our region in the nation for 34 years. 

For the past eight years she has been the Chief of the Missouri 

River Water Management for the Northwestern Division of the 

Army Corps. Jodi has been responsible for the regulation of the 

Missouri River Mainstream Reservoir System by directing water 

releases to make certain all congressionally authorized purposes 

were served. Most recently, Jodi spearheaded the Corps’ efforts to 

institute monthly updates with the region on projected runoff conditions, status of mainstream reservoirs, and scheduled releases to 

improve the transparency of operations and communications with 

the public. 

Jodi, I’ve had a flag that’s being flown over the United States 

Capitol to commemorate your years of service which you will receive within the next few weeks. Again, thank you for your years 

of service to this Nation, and enjoy your well-ordered retirement. 

Mr. Ponganis, whenever you are ready to begin, you may begin 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID PONGANIS, PROGAMS DIRECTOR, 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, POTLAND, OR 

Mr. PONGANIS. Thank you, Chairman Rounds. I am Dave 

Ponganis, Programs Director of the Northwestern Division of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be here today to 

4 

discuss the Corps’ operations of the Missouri River and the status 

of the Missouri River Recovery Program. 

As you mentioned, the Missouri River Mainstream System is 

comprised of six multipurpose dams and reservoirs, which include 

hydroelectric power plants and recreational areas. The Corps also 

operates and maintains a 735-mile navigation channel downstream 

of the six dams from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth near St. Louis. 

The Corps manages this complex and extensive system for eight 

Congressionally authorized purposes, as you mentioned all eight of 

those. Cycles of flooding and drought have always been a major 

part of the Missouri River Basin hydrology. The 2011 flooding was 

the result of unprecedented hydrologic events. Heavy snowpack in 

the mountains and on the plains of the basin during the winter 

combined with record rainoff [sic]—fall in May and June over much 

of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota resulted in the extraordinary flood event of 2011. But despite the record runoff in 

2011, the pendulum swung the other way in 2012 as a drought 

sped throughout the basin. 

Runoff in the upper basin was less than one-third the amount recorded in 2011. This year in 2017 we have again experienced both 

extremes but this time in a single year. Heavy snow accumulated 

on the plains early last winter, and yet -and snowpack, especially 

in Yellowstone’s basin, surged, and the forecast indicated potential 

for another high runoff year. But then the snow on the plains tapered off and melted in orderly fashion in late February, and the 

flood risk began to diminish. Mountain snowpack peaked near average in the reach above Fort Peck and much above average in the 

Yellowstone basin. By the time it melted and entered the reservoir, 

drought had developed across the plains. And now in mid-August 

concerns have turned to drought that is intensifying every day 

across eastern Montana and the western and central Dakotas. 

While there is now a drought in portions of the basin, water levels 

in the reservoirs are sufficient to serve the authorized purposes at 

this time. 

And, most important, all water stored in the annual flood control 

pools will be evacuated by the start of next year’s runoff season, 

reducing flood risk in this ever changing region. Following the flood 

of 2011, the Corps set up an external technical review panel to assess the Corps’s operation of the system prior to, during, and after 

the 2011 flood event. The independent panel recommended infrastructure investments to ensure the flood release spillways and 

tunnels are ready for service and our levies are in good condition. 

That work is essentially complete. The Corps works closely with 

both the federal agencies that produce water supply forecasts. Post 

2011 the Corps worked with the National Weather Service, the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the states to share existing data. Working with them, we have also developed a joint proposal for a comprehensive plains snowpack and soil moisture monitoring network for the upper plains. The Corps has also enhanced 

its coordination with tribes, state, and local government officials 

and other agencies during the period of heightened flood risks, including these monthly basin updates. In the following meeting with 

you in January, 

5 

Mr. Chairman, the Corps initiated a weekly update which is 

posted on our website each Tuesday providing stakeholders a clear, 

concise report on the snowpack, reservoir conditions, and other critical information. Thank you for that suggestion. We are hopeful 

that the improvements in runoff forecasting and sharing of critical 

data will provide even greater lead time for flood events resulting 

from high plains and mountain snowpack, although, unfortunately, 

they will have little impact on the more typical rainfall flooding, 

which is most common in the lower basin. Finally, the Corps is reviewing comments received from the public on the Draft Missouri 

River Management Plan EIS. We received over 450 comments. 

We’re now reviewing those. And we’re going to go through a process with input from the region through the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee. This concludes my testimony. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify about the ongoing operation 

of the Missouri Mainstem Reservoir System and the Missouri Recovery Program. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ponganis follows:] 

STATEMENT OF PAUL LEPISTO, REGIONAL CONSERVATION COORDINATOR, IZAAK

WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, PIERRE, SD 

Chairman Rounds, I am David Ponganis, Programs Director of the Northwestern 

Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss the Corps’ operations of the Missouri River and the status of the Missouri 

River Recovery Program. 

The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (System) is comprised of six multipurpose dams and reservoirs, which include hydroelectric power plants and recreational areas. The six dams on the mainstem of the Missouri River form the largest system of reservoirs in the United States. The Corps also operates and maintains a 735-mile navigation channel downstream of the six dams, from Sioux City, 

Iowa to the mouth near St. Louis, Missouri; and works with levee sponsors who 

maintain hundreds of miles of Federal and non-Federal levees along the river. 

The Corps manages this complex and extensive System for eight congressionally 

authorized purposes: flood risk management, navigation, hydropower, municipal and 

industrial water supply, water quality control, recreation, irrigation, and fish and 

wildlife. The Missouri River Master Manual is the Corps manual that guides the 

operating regime of the reservoirs under a wide range of water conditions (years of 

drought, years with flood conditions, and normal rain years) consistent with the authorized purposes. In addition, operation of the System must also comply with other 

applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Cycles of flooding and drought have always been a major part of the Missouri 

River Basin hydrology. The 2011 flooding was the result of unprecedented hydrologic events. Heavy snowpack in the mountains and on the plains of the basin during the winter, combined with record rainfall in May and June over much of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, resulted in the extraordinary flood event of 

2011. Runoff above Sioux City, Iowa, totaled 62 million acre feet compared to the 

normal 25 million acre feet, more than double the average and the highest on 

record, requiring record releases from all six mainstem dams. 

Despite the record runoff in 2011, the pendulum swung the other way in 2012 

as flash drought spread throughout the basin. Runoff in the upper basin was less 

than one-third the amount recorded in 2011. Inflows to the reservoirs dwindled as 

the drought expanded across the upper basin. As the tributaries of the lower basin 

dried up, the Corps made above normal releases from the mainstem reservoirs to 

serve navigation and water supply users downstream. The combination of low 

inflows and high releases drafted more than 8 million acre feet of water from the 

System in 2012. Reservoir levels at the three largest of the Corps dams (by storage 

capacity)—Garrison, Oahe, and Fort Peck—declined to levels between 8 feet and 14 

feet into the conservation pool, leading to requests by upper basin stakeholders for 

drought conservation. Fortunately, that drought was short-lived and reservoir levels 

rebounded in 2013 and 2014. 

6 

This year, in 2017, we have again experienced both extremes—but this time in 

a single year. Heavy snow accumulated on the plains early last winter, an ominous 

sign for citizens of the basin with fresh memories of the record flood of 2011. Mountain snowpack, especially in the Yellowstone basin, surged and the forecasts indicated the potential for another high runoff year. But then, the snow on the plains 

tapered off and melted in an orderly fashion in late February, and the flood risk 

began to diminish. Mountain snowpack peaked near average in the reach above Fort 

Peck, and much above average in the Yellowstone basin, but by the time it melted 

and entered the reservoir drought had developed across the plains. And now, in 

mid-August 2017, concerns have turned to the drought that is intensifying every day 

across eastern Montana and the western and central Dakotas, which is now an extreme drought to an exceptional drought in portions of those states according to the 

U.S. Drought Monitor. 

Runoff from the plains and mountain snowpack this year captured by the 

mainstem reservoirs is now providing excellent recreational opportunities both at 

the reservoirs and on the river reaches between them. Reservoir levels are sufficient 

to allow normal access for users to withdraw water for irrigation and for municipal 

and industrial purposes; and the Corps is making releases to serve navigation and 

other downstream uses, while generating hydropower. We are also operating the 

System to support fish and wildlife needs along the main stem of the Missouri 

River, including during the nesting seasons for the endangered interior least tern 

and the threatened piping plover, which are now winding down. 

Hence, the reservoirs have served both to reduce the flood risk and to dampen 

the impact of drought in the region this year. While there is now a drought in portions of the basin, water levels in the reservoirs are sufficient to serve the authorized purposes at this time. And most important, all water stored in the annual flood 

control pools will be evacuated by the start of next year’s runoff season, reducing 

flood risk in this ever changing region. 

Following the flood of 2011, the Corps set up an external technical review panel 

to assess the Corps’ operation of the System prior to, during, and after the 2011 

flood event for the purpose of gaining lessons learned and recommendations to improve future operations. The independent review panel recommended infrastructure 

investment to ensure that the flood release spillways and tunnels are ready for service and that our levees are in good condition. That work is essentially complete. 

The independent panel also recommended that the Corps conduct several studies 

on the operation of the System. The 2011 flood was a historical event that provided 

a new ‘‘data point’’ to incorporate into the tools used to predict, monitor and manage 

this System. The Corps is incorporating the information and lessons learned from 

the 2011 flood event into the models and tools we use to manage Missouri River 

operations. 

The Corps works closely works with the Federal agencies that produce water supply forecasts. Post 2011 flood, the Corps has worked with the National Weather 

Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the states to share existing 

data. Working with them, we also have developed a joint proposal for a comprehensive plains snowpack and soil moisture monitoring network for the upper plains. 

The Corps has also enhanced its coordination with Tribes, State and local government officials, and other agencies during periods of heightened flood risk including 

monthly basin update calls leading up to and during the peak runoff season to ensure awareness and two-way communication of potential flood risk. These calls include staff from the National Weather Service and are recorded and available online 

through the Corps web site. 

And following a meeting with you in January, Mr. Chairman, the Corps initiated 

a weekly update which is posted on our website each Tuesday, providing stakeholders a clear, concise report on plains and mountain snowpack, reservoir conditions and other critical information to ensure public awareness of basin conditions. 

Initially we planned to suspend the weekly updates until next year once the flood 

threat diminished, but as a result of the overwhelming positive response, the update 

has become part of our normal business process and will continue year-round. 

Thank you for that suggestion. 

We are hopeful that improvements in runoff forecasting and sharing of critical 

data will provide even greater lead time for flood events resulting from high plains 

and mountain snowpack, although unfortunately they will have little impact on the 

more typical rainfalldriven flooding which is most common in the lower basin. 

Finally, the Corps is reviewing comments received from the public regarding the 

draft Missouri River Recovery Management Plan-Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) as it moves toward preparing a final EIS. 

The draft EIS examined alternative ways to manage the Missouri River Recovery 

Program to meet the Corps’ obligations under the Endangered Species Act for the 

7 

river’s threatened and endangered species—the pallid sturgeon, interior least tern, 

and piping plover—while allowing the Corps to operate the river for the benefit of 

residents and businesses of the basin. 

The Corps received approximately 450 comments on the draft EIS via public 

meetings, mail, and online comment forms. Comments were received from members 

of the public, businesses, non-governmental and civic organizations, Federal, State 

and local governments, and Tribal governments. The final EIS will include a comment response report index, which will State how the Corps addressed the comments on the EIS. 

While the Corps is reviewing the public comments, it is also conducting government-togovernment consultation with Native American Tribes and is consulting 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop the Biological Assessment for formal Endangered Species Act Consultation. Due to ongoing consultation, 

it is too early to know how this process will impact the final EIS. After receiving 

the Biological Assessment, the USFWS will prepare a Biological Opinion, and then 

the Corps will issue a final EIS and Record of Decision with its selected alternative. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for allowing me to testify about the ongoing operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System and the Missouri 

River Recovery Program. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Ponganis. Let’s just begin. Recently there’s been an increasing conversation regarding the safety 

and maintenance of the U.S. Army Corps dams across the United 

States. Can you provide us with a status update regarding the 

safety and maintenance needs of the dams along the Missouri 

River? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes, sir. Post 2011 flood event, we did receive 

supplemental funding from Congress. And, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, all but a few things have been repaired from that flood 

event. There’s a few—still existing work at the spillway gates at 

Garretson. But other than that, everything that we have experienced damage from that event has been repaired. The levies, of 

course, they have ongoing circumstances, and we look at those 

every year and where necessary do provide for repairs. 

Senator ROUNDS. In your testimony you discussed the differences 

in management of the Missouri River in periods of heavy rainfall 

and in periods of drought. As you know, South Dakota is experiencing a severe drought this year. Can you elaborate on what we 

can expect to see in terms of different management of the River 

system as the Corps corresponds to the drought we’re experiencing 

and how this drought will impact flood risk in 2018? 

Mr. PONGANIS. So from this year as we started the year off we 

did have a little heavy snowpack. Throughout this runoff year 

would be about 120 percent of normal. Sufficient water has been— 

we captured that water in the reservoirs and the flood pool, and 

we’re evacuating that water. We’ll be releasing about a little over 

30,000 for the remainder of the season through December, and that 

will put us right where we want to be at the top of the conservation 

pools starting next year’s flood event, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. In your testimony you discussed the independent review panel that was convened following the 2011 flood. 

This technical panel recommended infrastructure investment to 

prevent future flooding and make sure the levies are in good condition. You say the Corps has essentially completed this work. Can 

you elaborate on what the panel recommended and what work the 

Corps has been doing in response to their recommendations? 

Mr. PONGANIS. So there were several recommendations about the 

infrastructure itself. There was—they wanted us to look at the 

8 

gates and their structural integrity and also the spillways. They 

did want us to look at the levy system downstream and do the repairs. As I mentioned, there was a lot of damage at one of the spillways at Fort Peck so we looked at each dam, did an inventory of 

the potential damages that did occur through the supplemental 

funding. We got the contracts in place, and the repairs have been 

made. 

Senator ROUNDS. In your testimony you mentioned the work the 

Corps is doing with the Natural Resources Conservation Services 

and the joint proposal you have developed for a snowpack and soil 

moisture monitoring program in the upper plains. The 2014 Water 

Resources Development Act, also known as WRRDA, authorized 

the creation of the program in response to the 2011 flood. At a 

2014 hearing I held in North Sioux City you testified that one of 

the reasons the program had been so slow to develop was because 

the Corps was unclear as to which agency should take the lead in 

managing the program. After hearing your testimony I had language included in the 2016 WRRDA bill that directed the Army 

Corps to be the lead agency in the development of snowpack and 

soil and moisture monitoring programs. Since the passage of this 

legislation has the Corps followed this directive and become the 

lead agency in developing the soil and snowpack monitoring program, and can you give me a status report on the program? 

Mr. PONGANIS. As you mentioned, Chairman Rounds, in the Sen- ate markup of our appropriations for FY ’17 there was $2 million 

that we were going to use to initiate that effort. Unfortunately, 

that did not appear in the final FY ’17 appropriations. We would 

be hopeful that in FY ’18 we would get direction to do that. We do 

have capability to start that work and work with the other agencies 

to develop a plan. And we looked at this back in 2013. I think 

there’s been a lot of improvements since then on what kind of monitoring can be done. I think we need to refresh that plan, sir, and 

to get some funds to start that would be the best step forward. 

Senator ROUNDS. I’m increasingly concerned about the rapid 

change in the water levels in Lake Sharpe. And there are certain 

other areas along the Missouri as well. In some instances the water 

level is fluctuating several feet overnight. These extreme changes 

in water level have damaged property along the Missouri, and I 

have concerns that it is also impacting wildlife that depend on a 

steady water level to survive. Can you tell me who is making these 

decisions for these releases and how these releases fit into the flood 

control plan? 

Mr. PONGANIS. So, sir, as—you may know, that we, the Corps, 

looks at how much water is released for all project purposes. One 

of those project purposes is hydropower generation. When we provided Western Area Power Administration the guidelines, if you 

will, for daily releases within that they have—they have the ability 

to fluctuate the power plant. So on average we ask them to provide, 

let’s say, 30,000 out of Oahe. They have the ability to go higher or 

lower than that as demand for electricity increases or decreases 

throughout the day. So it’s up to Western Area Power to manage 

that electrical grid and provide for load. So they do fluctuate, and 

that’s what we see down here is the releases out of Oahe being 

from peaking the hydropower plants to provide for load for when 

9 

the lights turn on during the day and your cycles there over the 

week. 

Senator ROUNDS. This is kind of a—and this is an opportunity 

to share this with the public in this part of the area because this 

is a change in the way the water levels have moved compared to 

previous years. There are some days here in which you’re releasing 

58,000 cubes, cubic foot per second, and at other times I suspect 

you’re down under 9,000 cubic feet per second in the same 24-hour 

period. Now while you may be averaging that out at 30,000 cube 

feet per second, when you maximize that and minimize that it 

would seem to me that there would be impact not only on wildlife 

but property in the area. Now I understand the goal here is to stay 

within a maximum and a minimum parameter of some sort, but 

when there is clear evidence that this is at very high levels compared to what we’ve seen in the past, is there a monitoring system 

in place to make sure that you’re not exceeding your upper levels 

that—in terms of the property damage that could be occurring because of that very high maximum rate for short periods of time? 

Mr. PONGANIS. They do have to stay within the stage elevations 

at the maximum—that we have set for flood stage. And they are 

below those. Historically, if you look at the graphs over the last 20 

plus years, the last 10 years don’t have as many peaks—as high 

a peak as maybe the last historical record would show. So whereas 

maybe we haven’t experienced and seen that here recently, if you 

look at the history behind it, Mr. Chairman, there has been periods 

where it has even exceeded what we’ve seen the last 10 years. But 

they have not and they do not go above the flood stage elevation. 

Senator ROUNDS. Is there any evidence or has there ever been a 

study done with regard to what this does to our fisheries in the 

Lake Sharpe area when we’re raising and lowering them like that? 

And does that have any bearing on the ability of the WAPA to determine on a daily basis what that water level is? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Sir, I’m not aware of any. 

Senator ROUNDS. Would you take it for the record, please. 

Mr. PONGANIS. I’ll take it for the record and get back to you, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you.In addition to my concerns about 

the wildlife and the property along the River, I’m concerned that 

the drastic fluctuations in the water levels will impact canal walls 

when the soil behind the walls becomes saturated and the tieback 

systems that keep these walls upright is weakened.Has the Corps 

considered the impact that these water releases will have along 

canal walls along the River? And would the Corps consider spreading the water releases out over several hours rather than the dramatic changes we’re seeing overnight?By that, I’m thinking specifically I’ve seen it myself where literally the water is over the top 

of the seawalls or the water—the actual vertical embankments that 

have been placed in a number of the residential regions in the 

Lake Sharpe region for certain, which they’re actually above those 

walls. 

And what’s happening is that when the water is moving up and 

down as quickly as it is, it’s not only saturating the ground behind 

it but now that ground, when it’s rapidly coming back down, those 

walls are now at risk because that heavy water laden moisture of 

10 

soil behind it and the weakening of ties that are in there are now 

beginning to move those walls. Is the Corps aware of that? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Sir, we’re going to have to get back to you on the 

specifics in this area.I know in general we do take that into consideration when setting what we call ramping rates, how fast you can 

go up or how fast you can go down in terms of releases or how fast 

we can drop a reservoir because of the same -So I know that’s a 

concern that we have nationally. I just don’t have the specifics 

here, sir, but we’ll get back to you on that. 

Senator ROUNDS. Okay.Is there a—is there a maximum amount 

of power which is available for production on each of these dams 

in terms of transmission capabilities? What I’m curious about is, as 

I understand it, there’s a limited amount of transmission capability, and it is shared between the production on the mainstem 

dams of the Missouri and also other types of renewable energy 

sources, such as wind power.With the development and increasing 

use of wind power, particularly in the Upper Midwest, are we sharing those limited transmission resources between the two? 

Mr. PONGANIS. That would be a question for Western Area Power 

Administration, sir, but I am generally aware of the issues surrounding that. There are many issues with the integration of like 

wind, which has a more variable output and how you, if you will, 

backstop that with other low generating resources like a hydropower facility.So there’s a whole bunch of issues surrounding that, 

sir, and I think having some discussion with the Western Area 

Power on the transmission side and how they balance that would 

be worthwhile. 

Senator ROUNDS. Is it true or is it your understanding—as the 

Corps responsible for the operation of the actual generating facilities and so forth, is it true that the ability for a—a demand for 

power in a very short term is handled very well by hydroelectric 

generating capacity as compared to other types of generating systems? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. In other words, you can turn it on and turn it 

off very quickly so when the demand is out there, if they need demand right now, thatdemand can come online very quickly using 

hydroelectric power. 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes. Compared to other generating resources like 

a thermal plant, yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. And so since normally in the past we’ve had 

firm power that we sometimes used—we used coal-fired plants in 

the past—we’re using less of that power and we’re using more renewable sources throughout the Upper Midwest. Is that a fair 

statement? 

Mr. PONGANIS. I believe so, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. And so with those other renewable resources 

that are perhaps more inconsistent than firm power is, the demand 

from on-demand power coming from hydroelectric plants is perhaps 

greater today than it has been in the past? 

Mr. PONGANIS. As a general statement, I believe so. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Would that not suggest that perhaps there 

needs to be a review of the guidelines for how the use of hydroelectric power is generated and how that fits in with regard to the 

11 

other expected requirements for management of the Missouri River 

such as flood control?What I’m suggesting is this: We now have a 

new demand for hydroelectric power because it fits very well with 

renewable resources that are perhaps inconsistent in their delivery 

of power. And yet at the same time we have a transmission system 

which shares both hydroelectric and other types of power. 

While you have an obligation to get a certain amount of water 

out just because the amount of water in and amount of water out 

on an annual basis has got to pretty much average, you’ve got 

times which they are demanding a huge amount because it fits well 

into the shortfall of a renewable source, such as wind power at 

times, and at the same time you need to release enough water to 

make sure that the dams are in an appropriate fashion to handle 

any possible additional snowfall the following year. Is that a fair 

analysis of what you find today? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes. And, you know, because we have multiple 

avenues to release water through the power plant, we have the regulating outlets. We have the spillways. So if there ever is a situation where we—the power demand is not there to use the power 

plant, we do have other means. But it is that balancing act that 

we try to go through the year in. 

Senator ROUNDS. I’d like to follow that up a little bit. Are there 

any plans right now to open up any of the bypass spillways, the 

tunnels as we call them out here, to avoid or—because of the fact 

that there may not be the need for generation or the ability to generate through the power plant or you may -Do you have any plans 

to open up the tubes to bypass the generating facilities in any of 

the mainstem dams at this time? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Not at this time, sir, no. 

Senator ROUNDS. So you believe the 30,000 average coming 

through right now will bring you back down out of the flood and 

normal operating ranges by what time this year? 

Mr. PONGANIS. By December, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. By December. And that’s based upon averaging 

out 30,000 cubes? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Are there—right now what I’m seeing and what 

I’m hearing in the local area, and once again as much of an educational process as anything else, it seems to me that the demand 

for hydroelectric usage in conjunction with new forms of power as 

they come online has perhaps created the need for a review of how 

fast these generating facilities should be increased and decreased 

so that we’re not causing undue problems with regard to wildlife 

by major fluctuations and also with regard to property damage possibilities where if you are at 58 to 60,000 cubes coming through 

here and if you are over those seawalls, assuming those seawalls 

were built to an anticipated level for normal operating, it seems to 

me that maybe that’s an area that we should pursue or at least 

look at as to whether or not those regulations and understandings 

with WAPA are, number one, being handled appropriately now and 

whether or not there needs to be additional guidelines laid out for 

that movement up and down. And I’d like your thoughts on that, 

if you could. Recognizing we’re getting into policy area, but I’d like 

your thoughts. 

12 

Mr. PONGANIS. From a general perspective—not maybe specific to 

the Missouri, sir, because there’s a lot of different basins around 

this country that have these issues.And as you see the renewable 

resources—wind, solar—come online, the energy market, the transmission system, is being challenged from what it used to be, as you 

said before, as a lot of base load. 

And so what you see across the country is -especially because of 

the hydropower facilities can, as you say, respond quickly to those 

changes from those other generation resources, you do see the demand for the use of these hydroelectric facilities to turn on and off 

more often.What that means to the project itself is you start seeing 

more wear and tear, more demand for more maintenance because 

they’re—you know, it’s like starting and stopping an engine. Like 

in your car. If you run it steady load for a while versus the stop 

and -start and stop traffic in the city, it takes the wear and tear. 

So across the country I’ve seen—from my standpoint, seen that 

occurring. And we respond to that. Of course, we—we do our annual inspections. But I do see that—an increasing trendline on the 

demand for some maintenance because of that. 

Senator ROUNDS. So not only could we have a possibility of having problems with wildlife that we really don’t have an answer to 

right now, and we know that we’ve got issues at least in the local 

area here in the central part of South Dakota with regard to property that has most certainly been impacted by the increasing and 

decreasing on a daily basis of significant water flows, but you’re 

also indicating that there has been on the part of the maintenance 

and the operations of the facilities themselves a change that you’re 

seeing in terms of maintenance needs based upon the turning on 

and turning off of these facilities on an inconsistent basis during 

the same time period. Is that what I’m hearing? 

Mr. PONGANIS. From a national scale, sir, yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. Would you say that that national scale would 

be any—would it be any different locally on the hydroelectric dams 

on the mainstem of the Missouri River than what you’ve seen on 

a national scale? 

Mr. PONGANIS. It depends on the plant and where it fits in within the transmission system. Certain power plants are more important from a power perspective where they stand against the transmission system in their ability to help balance that. So it is site 

specific, sir, and would tend to require that we look at that on an 

individual basis. 

Senator ROUNDS. Is it true that the most valuable electrical production is production which is available on an immediate on-demand basis? 

Mr. PONGANIS. It’s my understanding that is -yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. So for Western Area Power Administration 

whose responsibility it is to maximize the output of power, as I understand it, in a cost-effective manner, for that organization this is 

a money-making opportunity to provide power when it is most 

needed, which is at high demand times. 

Mr. PONGANIS. And I firmly believe, sir, that Western Area 

Power Administration is there to meet the regional load, regardless 

of the economics surrounding it. That’s their charge. And I think 

they try to do that job very well. 

13 

Senator ROUNDS. So but they will have to follow within guidelines that are laid out under the management plan for the Missouri 

River; correct? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. So if there was a place that we go to assure 

that there is a reasonable expectation as to water levels, based 

upon what we’re listening today in terms of—and what we’re learning today in terms of impacts on the dam facilities themselves, and 

the fact that we’ve asked for information on the impact on the fisheries in the area and the wildlife in the area and also based upon 

what we clearly can see here as property damage that occurs, it 

seems to me that unless there is a guideline, they have unfettered 

access to a minimum and maximum production capabilities of each 

of the mainstem dams that may have to be revisited. Are you 

aware of anything that would—anything incorrect in my statement? 

Mr. PONGANIS. No, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Okay. Thank you. Let me move on a little bit. 

We’ve heard from a number of individuals who have appreciated 

the increased communication between the Corps and the stakeholders regarding snowpack levels and flood risk along the Missouri. Can you give me your assessment of the changes that you’ve 

made regarding the public awareness this past flood season and 

the improvements or changes that you think can be made in 2018? 

Mr. PONGANIS. So, sir, during the 2011 flood event the—it was 

well recognized that communication on the operation of the system 

with the public is extremely important. Out of that we started 

monthly calls starting in the January time frame typically through 

June, July, where we had those updates. I think it was based upon 

the conversation you had with Jodi and Colonel Henderson at the 

time in January where you suggested that we try to do that on a 

more frequent basis that we started a weekly web posting of information. And that was supplementing our monthly calls. And we’re 

going to continue to do that through -through the year. It’s just another way to be transparent in our operations. I think that has 

greatly improved the communication. And, as I said, we’ll continue 

to do that as we go finish off this year and start 2018. 

Senator ROUNDS. Okay. Can you tell me the status, Director 

Ponganis, on the—the status of the Real Estate Guidance Policy 

Letter No. 26 and the proposed rulemaking, Use of Army Corps of 

Engineers Reservoir Projects For Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial Water Supply?Director Ponganis, can you explain to me the 

rationale behind the Corps not recognizing the State’s right to 

manage the natural flows of the Missouri that appears to be found 

within your Guidance Policy Letter No. 26. Are you familiar with 

what I’m talking about? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Had more than one communications about it? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Talk to me about it. 

Mr. PONGANIS. This has been an evolving situation within the 

Corps over the last several years, as you know, Senator. The issue 

is to get an easement across Corps property for a water right holder to get to the water. The regulations, as they were written, indiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27317.TXT VERN
14 

cate that to get that easement that you’d have to enter in for a contract on storage.The guidance that we have on that falls into two 

different laws, surplus water in Section 6 and permanent rights 

under Water Supply. There is a rulemaking ongoing. As a matter 

of fact, the rulemaking comment period was just extended this 

week—last week, end of last week, beginning of this week. It was 

about to end but has been now extended through November I believe it’s 18th, 2017. That information will come out here shortly 

on a news release. 

That was to lay out a more consistent national policy on how to 

approach this issue. But, again, that’s still in the works. Until then 

we are working on an individual basis. If a water right user, holder, comes in and wants to do that, we take that individual request 

and we have to go up to our headquarters over to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army’s Office for approval to enter into those contracts and easements. And per WRRDA, for the next now about 

eight years there will be no charges on that—on those contracts. 

Senator ROUNDS. The reason why we ask, and we’re going to 

have testimony from the mayor of Pierre shortly, the City of Pierre 

has been undertaking a burdensome permitting process in order to 

obtain an easement to cross Corps land to have access to the River. 

The Corps is requiring the City to obtain a 404 Permit and has requested additional information from the City which will cost them 

literally thousands of dollars in engineering studies. It appears as 

though the Corps has either made this into an extremely burdensome process as to avoid or at least to delay the implementations 

of these easements. 

And most certainly it appears as though the Corps has taken the 

position that although our state law clearly has issued a permit so 

that we can—and this is crazy. We want to just simply be able to 

irrigate park land right along the Missouri River, but we have to 

cross the easement in order to—or the Corps land to get to the 

water where we have a state identified water right of that moving 

through. I’m curious as to the thought process behind the—this existing. And, once again, the Rule 26 comes into play. Either the 

Corps is not recognizing a state water right law, which has been 

in existence for 100 years or better, or we’re misunderstanding 

something. Because this is simply access to get to water that most 

certainly under our State’s laws, as clearly as identified and recognized in the original Flood Control Act of 1943—or we’re missing 

something else here. And I’m just wondering if you could shed 

some light just for the folks in the local area about why we’re having this kind of challenge to cross Corps land to get to the water 

which we have a state water right to obtain? 

Mr. PONGANIS. So, Mr. Chairman, again, when this issue came 

up several years ago with—and 

Secretary Darcy was the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works at the time, she did a—she looked at this from a national perspective and found out that we were not—we were not 

implementing across the board a consistent program to address 

that particular issue. And that was really the genesis for the rulemaking effort. And, as I just mentioned, where the comment period 

has been extended. We recognize the water rights of holders. We’re 

not in that business. That’s state business. But we do have to look 

15 

at that easement crossing our land. And, again, the rulemaking 

was trying to get to a consistent program to address that specific 

question. 

Senator ROUNDS. Sometimes one size does not fit all. Director 

Ponganis, you’ve been very patient with me as I worked my way 

through a series of questions here. I’ve got just a couple of other 

ones here. And I most certainly appreciate the comments that you 

made. The City of Ft. Pierre, now celebrating its 200th birthday 

this year, they’ve been impacted by the buyout of numerous residential properties by the Army Corps. As a result, there is now a 

checkerboard of dozens of vacant lots fully furnished with infrastructure and basically no tax revenue. 

Is there a process in place that the Corps has for negotiating or 

returning pieces of property like this to a community, to a municipality, to a county? Is there a process in place today, or is this 

something that we need to look at in terms of further legislation? 

Mr. PONGANIS. So my understanding, Mr. Chairman, is there 

was a specific act that allowed for the Corps to either purchase the 

property from willing sellers or flood proof property. Underneath 

that law when we purchased that land there is no provisions for 

us to resell that. So if there is a desire on the part of the City to 

look at that, that could require some assistance from the committee 

in terms of maybe some legislation in a WRRDA bill that would 

allow for that specific transaction to occur. 

Senator ROUNDS. Very good.Thank you. Is there—I want to go 

back over just the big picture one more time so that we’re clear and 

give you the opportunity to clarify anything if I’ve misunderstood 

what you indicated. The mainstem dams of the Missouri River, currently while they may have more water in them than what you 

want in December, that’s expected this time of the year, you anticipate that with an average flow, an average flow of 30,000 cubic foot 

per second through the system, thereabouts, you will be well within 

or at least you will be within the normal operating range as you 

-as the plan calls for along the mainstem dams with those dams 

by the time freeze up comes or at least the first part of December. 

Is that fair to say? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. And, furthermore, that the fluctuations that 

we’re seeing here have been a demand for power which has been, 

under your knowledge, following within the guidelines that have 

been laid out in the past for WAPA to be able to request power increases or generation increases on demand but that there are no 

further restrictions other than a minimum and a maximum, that 

you believe that they have been adhering to with regard to the 

total amount of water being released from the mainstem dams? 

Mr. PONGANIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. So if there was a need or if there was an interest on the part of regulating further the maximum and minimums 

in a time frame for delivery of those, you believe that that would 

have to be something taken up within the operating plan, or is 

there another way or a better way to be able to respond to that to 

eliminate some of the real concerns and clear evidences of damage 

being done along the River today? 

16 

Mr. PONGANIS. I think, Mr. Chairman, that would have to be 

looked at from both the operating perspective, operating manual, 

as well as from a perspective of WAPA on meeting load. So it’s not 

just looking at the physical changes that you would look at from 

the ability of WAPA to meet a regional load. So it would have to 

be a joint effort, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. But based upon the current projections at this 

time, you do not see water releases through anything other than 

the regular hydro plants along any of the mainstem dams on the 

Missouri River? 

Mr. PONGANIS. For the remainder of this season. 

Senator ROUNDS. For the remainder of this season. Okay. Very 

good. Mr. Ponganis, thank you very much for your testimony today. 

Mr. PONGANIS. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. At this time we’re going to take just a few minutes and we’ll change around and you’ll hear testimony from several of our local witnesses as well.(Pause.) 

Senator ROUNDS. Our witnesses joining us for our second panel 

today are Mayor Steve Harding, Mayor of Pierre, South Dakota; 

Jeanne Goodman, Chief Engineer, South Dakota Water Program, 

Department of the Environment and Natural Resources in Pierre, 

South Dakota; Mr. Paul Lepisto, Regional Conservation Coordinator, Izaac Walton League of America. Welcome, and I appreciate 

your taking time to come in and visit with us today. I will turn to 

our first witness, Mayor Harding, for five minutes. Mayor Harding, 

your full statement, full testimony, will be included for the record, 

but you may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE HARDING, MAYOR, CITY OF 

PIERRE, PIERRE, SD 

Mayor HARDING. Thank you, Chairman Rounds, and thank you 

for the invitation to testify this morning. I am Steve Harding, 

Mayor of Pierre. Through my testimony today I hope to add to the 

Subcommittee’s understanding of the challenges for Pierre and 

other River communities like Pierre who are facing and obtaining 

federal permits to access Missouri River water. Before I get further 

into my testimony, I do want to thank you, Chairman Rounds, for 

your ongoing leadership to facilitate communications between Missouri River communities and the Corps of Engineers. 

Thank you for your efforts. As you know, the 2011 Missouri 

River flood devastated the communities of Pierre and Ft. Pierre. 

On the positive side, it’s also caused the City of Pierre’s relationship with the local Corps of Engineer’s office to grow. We do receive 

regular updates of snowpack, water releases, and river levels. 

These scheduled updates provided by the Corps greatly increase 

the community’s confidence and understanding of River management. With that in mind, the City of Pierre would highly encourage 

the Corps of Engineers to purchase additional snowpack monitoring 

equipment to enhance reliable flood control information for the 

Missouri River communities like Pierre. As you know, Pierre is 

nestled along the Missouri River, and the River is very much a central part of our community. In fact, two miles of our parks system 

are riverfront. We take great pride in showcasing our natural resource, and we work hard to keep our riverfront property inviting. 

17 

As you’d expect, keeping the green space along the River green 

does require irrigation. 

Pierre currently has to use treated water to irrigate its parks. 

Pierre’s water is supplied by ground waterproduced by a series of 

local wells. All water produced by the wells is treated prior to distribution. This treatment comes at an expense to the City and ultimately to taxpayers of our community. To control these costs the 

City is working to gain access to Missouri River water for irrigation 

purposes. In March of last year we worked with the South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources to obtain a 

water permit so we could utilize river water for irrigation. In May 

of last year DENR approved the permit. We subsequently requested an easement from the Corps so we could access the water 

DENR gave us permission to use. 

The federal permitting process has proved to be challenging, financially burdensome, and somewhat bizarre, especially when considering the scope of our requested permit. DENR gave us permission to use 1.57 cubic feet per second between April 1 and November 30. For perspective, the amount of water is less than two-thousandths of a percent. That’s .00155 percent of the water that flows 

past Pierre annually. After making contact with the Corps, it was 

our understanding that submission of the 404 Permit form was the 

first step in the federal process for obtaining an easement. As you 

might know, 404 permits are typically required prior to construction activities. Although it seemed abnormal to submit a 404 Permit at this initial stage of the process, we complied and submitted 

the form. After submission of the 404 Permit form, the City received an additional request from the Corps for more information. 

It did not appear to be an official Corps form or permitting application. 

It was just typed in a Word document. The City of Pierre has obtained a number of 404 permits in the past, and we have never 

been asked for this level of detail to obtain the 404 Permit. To date 

the City of Pierre has not been able to fulfill the additional request 

for information. The City would need to invest tens of thousands 

of dollars in engineering studies to provide the secondary details 

requested by the Corps. For example, the Corps requested information regarding pump size and approach velocity. 

These details require the entire irrigation distribution system to 

be fully engineered. It is difficult for the City Commission to justify 

completing a distribution system design when we have no guarantees we’ll be provided access to the River or have the ability to utilize that distribution system. As a small government unit, the unit 

in Pierre works hard to find financial efficiencies. By utilizing river 

water for irrigation, we are looking to lower costs, which ultimately 

benefits our citizens. The City simply wants access to the water we 

have already been granted permission to use. To that end, the 

City’s request today is for a consistent, streamlined easement process that will allow entities that have been given legal rights to utilize Missouri River water to be able to access that water. I’d ask 

that the Corps clearly outline the permitting process, with time 

lines, financial obligations, and process flow. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I look forward to working with the 

18 

Corps to find a reasonable solution to the City’s current permitting 

concerns. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harding follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE HARDING, MAYOR, CITY OF PIERRE, PIERRE, SD 

Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Harris, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am Steve Harding, Mayor of Pierre, South Dakota. Through my statement today, 

I hope to add to the subcommittee’s understanding of the challenges communities 

are facing in navigating the Federal permit process and obtaining Federal easements for water access. 

Flood Management 

At the outset, I do want to thank Chairman Rounds for his ongoing leadership 

in helping Missouri River communities understand the management of the Missouri 

River by opening lines of communications between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and local government leadership. 

Although the 2011 Missouri River flood was devastating to Pierre, it did cause the 

city of Pierre’s relationship with the local Corps of Engineers Office to grow immensely. We now receive regular updates about snow pack, water releases and river 

levels. These scheduled updates greatly increase our comfort level and understanding of river management. I want to thank the USACE for its ongoing cooperation and information sharing on this matter. 

To that end, it is our understanding that money has been appropriated to the 

USACE for the purchase of additional snow pack monitoring equipment. The City 

supports the purchase to further enhance reliable flood control information for Missouri River communities. 

I also want to commend the staff of our local Corps of Engineers Office. We enjoy 

a solid relationship with the local team and greatly appreciate their cooperation and 

professionalism. 

River Access 

As you know, Pierre is nestled along the Missouri River, and the river is very 

much a central part of our community. In fact, two miles of our park system are 

riverfront. 

The City takes great pride in showcasing the natural resource and works hard 

to keep our riverfront property inviting. As you’d expect, keeping the green space 

along the river green does require irrigation. 

Pierre’s water is supplied by groundwater produced by a series of local wells. All 

water produced by the wells is treated prior to distribution. The City feels it is unnecessary to use water treated for drinking purposes to be used for irrigation in our 

parks. Treated water comes at an expense to the City and ultimately, the tax payers. 

To control these costs and because of our proximity to the Missouri River, the City 

is working to gain access to Missouri River water for irrigation purposes. 

In March of 16, the city of Pierre worked with the South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) to obtain a Water Permit which 

would allow the City to utilize river water for irrigating our riverfront park system. 

In May 2016, SD DENR approved the permit. The SD DENR determined that 

there is unappropriated water available for irrigation use, that the diversion could 

be developed without impairing existing rights, that the City’s intended use of the 

water is beneficial and it was in the public interest. 

Subsequently, the City sought an easement from the USACE to access the water 

we had been given rights to utilize. Unfortunately, the Federal permitting process 

proved to be challenging to navigate, and financially burdensome—especially when 

considering the scope of the requested permit. The amount of water we would use 

annually is less than 2 thousandths of a percent —that’s .00155 percent) of the 

water that flows past Pierre annually. 

After making contact with the USACE with our initial intake and irrigation plan, 

it was our understanding that submission of the 404 Permit form was the first step 

in the USACE process for obtaining an easement. As you might know, 404 Permits 

are typically required prior to construction activities. Although it seemed abnormal 

to submit a 404 Permit at this initial stage of the process, we complied and submitted the form. 

After submission of the 404 Permit form, the City received an additional request 

from the USACE for more information. This secondary request for information did 

not appear to be on an official USACE form or permitting application, nor did we 

previously understand this document to be part of the easement permitting process. 

19 

To date, the city of Pierre has not been able to fulfill the additional request for 

information. To fulfill that request, the city would need to invest tens of thousands 

of dollars in engineering studies. For example, the USACE requested information 

regarding pump size and approach velocities. Those details require the entire irrigation distribution system to be fully engineered. It is difficult for the City to justify 

completing a distribution system design when we have no guarantees we’ll be provided access to the river or have the ability utilize that distribution system. 

It is the City’s opinion that the request is incongruous with the scope of the 

project, and we do not have a clear understanding of the Federal easement permitting process. What steps remain in the easement permitting process? 

As a small government unit, the city of Pierre works hard to find financial efficiencies. By utilizing river water for irrigation, we are looking to lower costs which 

ultimately benefits our citizens. The City simply wants access to the water that we 

have already been granted permission to use. 

To that end, the City’s request today is for a consistent streamlined easement 

process that will allow entities that have been given legal rights to utilize Missouri 

River water to be able to access that water. We’d ask that the USACE clearly outline the permitting process with timelines, financial obligations, and process flow. 

The City understands processes are necessary, however, it is our experience that the 

current process is cumbersome, overly burdensome, and financially prohibitive. We 

question why the USACE is making it so challenging for the City to provide this 

cost saving service to our community. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I look forward to working 

with the USACE to find a reasonable resolution to the City’s current permitting concerns. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mayor Harding, for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Ms. Goodman. Ms. Goodman, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE GOODMAN, CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH 

DAKOTA WATER PROGRAM, PIERRE, SD 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rounds. My 

name is Jeanne Goodman. I’m the Chief Engineer of the Water 

Rights Program for the South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I 

want to share DENR’s perspective of theCorps’s management of the 

Missouri River since the 2011 flood event, DENR’s efforts in managing water use of the Missouri River, and how federal and state 

management of the—efforts of the River need to work collaboratively. Following post 2011 Missouri River Flood Independent Review Report recommendations, the Corps began improving communication systems between other agencies and distributions of current conditions, storage forecasts, and planned releases with federal, state, and local officials during periods of heightened flood 

risk. 

DENR appreciates the Corps’s improved communications, especially during spring flows and runoff conditions, through monthly 

conference calls. Updates of basin conditions posted on their 

website have been particularly helpful this year, as early mountain 

snowmelt and late spring runoff impacted Lake Oahe levels resulting in variable flows of Lake Sharpe. However, the Independent 

Review Report conditions [sic] for studies to enhance data collections, forecasting, and runoff from plains snow, which was insufficient in preparing for and managing the 2011 flood, have not been 

implemented. This key piece in flood management was authorized 

by the 2014 Water Resources Development Act, or WRRDA, but the 

Corps needs to step up as the lead agency to make this program 

happen. 

Water laws in South Dakota dates back to statehood and declares all waters of the state are property of the people of the state. 

20 

The right to use the water may be acquired by appropriation, as 

provided by law. Water right permits can be issued if there is unappropriated water available. The use will not unlawfully impair 

existing rights. The proposed use is beneficial and is in the public 

interest. Meeting these criteria, water right permits are issued for 

the use of the natural flows from the Missouri River. Natural flows 

are essentially those waters that would flow in the River, whether 

the—whether or not the mainstem reservoirs existed. 

The Corps, however, does not recognize natural flows or the 

State’s jurisdiction over them. Instead they consider all water in 

reservoir as stored water under federal authority. In 2008 the 

Corps issued Real Estate Guidance Policy Letter No. 26, a policy 

requiring municipal and industrial water users to acquire a water 

storage contract prior to the Corps issuing an access easement to 

a Missouri River reservoir for a pump site. Since the Corps ignores 

the existence of natural flows and had no process for issuing contracts, the effort of the policy was to place a moratorium 

oneasements to Missouri River reservoirs. This moratorium hit 

South Dakota hard because out of the 1,000 miles of Missouri River 

shoreline, only about 100 are on two short free-flowing stretches in 

the state. 90 percent of the River became off limits to potential 

users of the Missouri River water. How can South Dakotans use 

Missouri River water? How can they put it to beneficial use when 

access to the River is denied? We agree the Corps has certain authorities under the 1944 Flood Control Act and the 1958 Water 

Supply Act but strongly dispute the Corps’s definition of stored 

water as being all water held within the boundaries of the reservoir. A proposed rulemaking published in December 2016, which 

was intended to standardize how the Corps will charge for stored 

water and further define stored water versus natural flows, has 

failed to fully recognize states’ jurisdictions in the matter. As Governor Daugaard commented on the proposed rulemaking, ′′The proposed rule is unacceptable to South Dakota′′ because the Corps ′′attempts to write into rule the agency’s legal authority to expand 

federal storage right claims and control over the allocation of all of 

the 

Missouri River water without regard to state water laws.′′ State’s 

rights to natural flows of navigable waters within their borders are 

constitutionally founded and protected in the Equal Footing Doctrine. Congress acknowledged this states’ right in the first sentence 

of Section 1 of the 1944 Flood Control Act by stating, ′′It is declared 

to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the interests and 

rights of the states in determining the development of the watersheds within their borders.′′ As a consequence of the Doctrine and 

the enacted law, the Corps must acknowledge the State’s right to 

natural flows for states to effectively manage the Missouri River 

water. Governor Daugaard’s complete comment letter on the proposed rulemaking has been filed for the record with my testimony. 

To address these issues South Dakota suggests Congress take the 

following actions: Direct the Corps to continue basin updates for 

congressional, state, and local interest and step up as lead agency 

to develop and implement a plains snowpack and drought monitoring network as authorized by the 2014 WRRDA. Secondly, acknowledge that natural flows through the reservoirs exist and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27317.TXT VERN
21 

main under the jurisdiction of the states by rescinding Real Estate 

Guidance Policy Letter No. 26 and allowing users to access the 

water for which they have obtained state water rights. And, three, 

reject the current proposed rulemaking, Use of Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial 

Water Supply. I hope this information is useful to your Subcommittee, Mr. Chair. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Goodman follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE GOODMAN, CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH DAKOTA WATER

PROGRAM PIERRE, SD 

Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Harris, and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Jeanne Goodman, Chief Engineer of the Water Rights Program, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify. I want to share DENR’s perspective of the Corps’ management of the Missouri River since the 2011 flood event, DENR’s efforts in managing 

water use of the Missouri River, and how Federal and State management efforts 

need to work collaboratively. 

Following the post 2011 Missouri River Flood Independent Review Report recommendations, the Corps began improving communication systems between other 

agency forecasts and distribution of current conditions, storage forecasts, and 

planned releases with Federal, state, and local officials during periods of heightened 

flood risk. DENR appreciates the Corps improved communication especially during 

spring flows and runoff conditions through monthly conference calls. Updates of 

basin conditions posted on their website have been particularly helpful this year as 

early mountain snowmelt and late spring runoff impacted Lake Oahe levels resulting in variable flows in Lake Sharpe. 

However, the Independent Review Report recommendations for studies to enhance 

data collection, forecasting, and runoff from plains snow, which was insufficient in 

preparing for and managing the 2011 flood, has not been implemented. This key 

piece in flood management was authorized by the 2014 Water Resources Development Act, but the Corps needs to step up as lead agency to make this program happen. 

Water Rights law in South Dakota dates back to statehood and declares all waters 

within the State as the property of the people of the state. The right to use the 

water may be acquired by appropriation as provided by law. Water right permits 

can be issued if there is unappropriated water available, the use will not unlawfully 

impair existing rights, the proposed use is beneficial, and is in the public interest. 

Meeting these criteria, water right permits are issued for use of the natural flows 

from the Missouri River. Natural flows are those waters that would flow in the river 

whether or not the main stem reservoirs existed. 

The Corps, however, does not recognize natural flows or the state’s jurisdiction 

over them. Instead they consider all water in a reservoir as stored water under Federal authority. In 2008 the Corps issued Real EState Guidance Policy Letter No. 26, 

a policy requiring municipal and industrial water users to acquire a water storage 

contract prior to the Corps issuing an access easement to a Missouri River reservoir 

for a pump site. Since the Corps ignores the existence of natural flows and had no 

process for issuing contracts, the effect of the policy was to place a moratorium on 

easements to Missouri River reservoirs. This moratorium hit South Dakota hard, because out of a thousand miles of Missouri River shoreline, only about one hundred 

are on two short free-flowing stretches in the state. Ninety percent of the river became off limits to potential users of Missouri River water. 

How can South Dakotans put Missouri River water to beneficial use when access 

to the water is denied? We agree the Corps has certain authorities under the 1944 

Flood Control Act and 1958 Water Supply Act but strongly dispute the Corps’ definition of stored water as being all the water held in reservoirs. A proposed rulemaking 

published December 2016, intended to standardize how the Corps will charge for 

stored water and further define stored water versus natural flows, failed to fully recognize states’ jurisdiction in the matter. 

As Governor Daugaard commented on the proposed rulemaking, ‘‘the proposed 

rule is unacceptable to South Dakota’’ because the Corps ‘‘attempts to write into 

rule the agency’s legal authority to expand Federal storage right claims and control 

over the allocation of all of the Missouri River water without regard to State water 

laws’..’’ States’ rights to natural flows of navigable waters within their borders are 

constitutionally founded, and protected, in the Equal Footing Doctrine. Congress acVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27317.TXT VERN
22 

knowledged this states’ right in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 1944 Flood 

Control Act by stating ‘‘it is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize 

the interests and rights of the States in determining the development of the watersheds within their borders and likewise their interests and rights in water utilization and control’ As a consequence of the doctrine and the enacted law, the Corps 

must acknowledge the state’s right to natural flows for states to effectively manage 

Missouri River water. (Governor Daugaard’s complete comment letter the ‘‘Use of 

Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial 

Water Supply’’ proposed rulemaking is attached.) 

To address these issues, South Dakota suggests Congress take the following actions: 

1. Direct the Corps to follow through on the 2011 Missouri River Flood Independent Review Report by continuing basin updates for congressional, state, and 

local interests and step up as lead agency to develop and implement a plains 

snowpack and drought monitoring network authorized by the 2014 WRDA. 

2. Acknowledge that natural flows through the reservoirs exist and remain under 

the jurisdiction of the states by rescinding Real EState Guidance Policy Letter No. 

26 and allowing users to access the water for which they have obtained State water 

rights. 

3. Reject the current proposed rulemaking ‘‘Use of Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water Supply’’. 

I hope this information is useful to the Subcommittee. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Goodman. 

We’ll now hear from our next witness, Mr. Paul Lepisto. Mr. 

Lepisto, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL LEPISTO, REGIONAL CONSERVATION 

COORDINATOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, 

PIERRE, SD 

Mr. LEPISTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Izaac Walton 

League of America appreciates the opportunity to testify here 

today. Our written testimony provides much greater detail, but we 

would like to address several topics this morning. We believe the 

Missouri River is one of the most altered ecosystems on earth. The 

’44 Flood Control Act created eight authorized purposes that are in 

direct conflict. 35 percent of the River is impounded by reservoirs, 

and 33 percent is artificially channelized by the Bank Stabilization 

and Navigation Project. Creation of the dams in the BSNP resulted 

in millions of acres of the River’s aquatic and terrestrial habitat 

being destroyed. That habitat historically made the Missouri River 

one of the richest ecosystems on earth. While habitat restoration is 

ongoing, we believe much more must be done. Restoration will provide critical habitat for over 85 native fish species and over 140 

bird species along the River. We recognize the paradox the Corps 

faces every year. Flood control requires removing water from the 

reservoirs while the other purposes require storing water. 

Also only 53 percent of the basin is regulated by the mainstem 

reservoirs, leaving areas of the lower basin subject to flooding regardless of Corps’s action. We urge better communication by the 

Corps with this—with the public on this topic. We also encourage 

the Corps to rethink rather than just rebuild structures that repeatedly fail. More levy setbacks and river widening projects 

should be used. This would give the River more room to roam, provide flood risk reduction, and reestablish floodplain conductivity. 

The incredible dynamics of the basin are evident again this year 

as has been touched on this morning. Areas are experiencing sever 

to exceptional drought while dam releases are high. We believe 

there’s an urgent needfor a much more flexible management apVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27317.TXT VERN
23 

proach, and we would support updating the master manual to 

allow additional in-season release adjustments that more closely 

match that year’s actual runoff. We believe the federally listed species are poster children for our largely unhealthy river. Restoring 

habitat will benefit the listed species and the fish species that are 

now listed as rare or declining. We urge action that in selected 

areas would allow the River to restore its own habitat for self-sustaining fish and wildlife populations. This will recover the River, 

reduce flood risk, and improve water quality, while increasing recreational opportunities. We call on the Corps to continue the BSNP 

Mitigation Program and strongly urge them to seek the funding to 

get the BSNP Mitigation Program back on track. The recreation industry on the Missouri River is a major economic engine that supports local, regional, and national businesses. Its economic impact 

exceeds by more than 10 times the Flood Control Act’s original expectations for it. 

Recreation produces and sustains thousands of year-round jobs in 

and out of the basin, yet we’re concerned about the health of the 

fisheries on the reservoirs. Stable or rising springtime levels, especially at Fort Peck, Sakakawea, and Oahe, are essential for fish recruitment. We do support the Corps’s unbalanced management approach in their attempts to raise water levels in at least one of the 

reservoirs each spring. The League commends the Corps for improved engagement with other agencies for the monitoring of 

snowpack, soil moisture, and frost depth every year. However, we 

too are disappointed the Corps has not yet requested the funding 

for gauges that accurately measure runoff and snow water equivalent. We urge the Corps to incorporate climate change and its impact in their future runoff scenarios and in their annual operating 

plan development process. In most years the amount of water in 

the Missouri River Basin is limited, especially from the upper semiarid basin. We support the Corps meeting navigation flows if and 

only if commercial navigation is actually on the lower river. This 

should be enacted every year that runoff is at or below average. We 

obviously acknowledge the importance of getting the reservoirs out 

of the exclusive flood control zone, but we would ask for water conservation measures every year once that goal is reached. We also 

urge the Corps to work with other agencies to lessen sediment in 

the reservoirs by encouraging conservation methods that reduce 

erosion, and we would support exploring ways to decrease and/or 

transport sediment from the reservoirs. The League believes the 

Missouri River benefits everyone if it’s healthy, and if it’s managed 

for multiple uses, the River will create even more jobs, revenue, 

and recreational opportunities for families in the basin and all 

across the nation. And, with that, I thank you for your time and 

consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lepisto follows:] 

STATEMENT OF PAUL LEPISTO, REGIONAL CONSERVATION COORDINATOR, IZAAK

WALTON LEAGE OF AMERICA, PIERRE, SD 

The Izaak Walton League of America (League) appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the topic: ‘‘Oversight of the Army Corps’ Management of 

the Missouri River.’’ The League was founded in 1922, and has over 42,000 members and nearly 230 chapters around the country. Many of the League’s members 

are avid recreationists that fish, hunt, and truly enjoy living in the Missouri River 

24 

basin. The river plays a major role in many of our members’ daily lives. The League 

looks to collaborate with all interests in the basin to find common sense, sciencebased solutions that work with the river rather than against it. The Missouri River 

basin encompasses land covering one-sixth of the continental United States. The 

Missouri, America’s longest river, is one of the most altered ecosystems on earth. 

Many of the alterations followed passage of the 1944 Flood Control Act (FCA), which 

created eight authorized purposes: flood control, hydropower, recreation, fish and 

wildlife, irrigation, water supply, water quality, and navigation. These purposes— 

by their individual water needs—have been, and continue to be, in direct conflict 

with each other. 

The Missouri River is far different than the ‘‘Big Muddy’’ explored by Lewis and 

Clark. Today, 35 percent of the river is impounded by six massive main stem reservoirs and 33 percent is artificially channelized in the 735 mile Bank Stabilization 

and Navigation Project (BSNP) from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Louis, Missouri. With 

creation of the dams and the BSNP, millions of acres of the river’s historic aquatic 

and terrestrial habitat have been lost or destroyed. This includes much of the 

riverine forest and shrub land vegetation, nearly all of the sandbars and islands, 

and the majority of the river’s shallow and slow water habitat. The alternations 

were so significant the river is now 120 miles shorter between Sioux City and St. 

Louis. While some habitat recovery and restoration efforts are ongoing, the League 

believes much more must be done. League members, especially those living in Iowa, 

Nebraska, and South Dakota, want to see the recovery efforts continue and expand. 

The League believes many more areas along the river are in need of restoration and 

conservation efforts due to the high-quality recreational, natural, scenic, and historical resources they contain. With additional restoration, areas of the river could 

again provide critical habitat for over 85 native fish species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon, and more than 140 year-round and migratory bird species, 

including the bald eagle and the federally listed least tern and piping plover. The 

river’s man-made alterations destroyed most of the braided side channels, chutes, 

wetlands, islands, sandbars, backwaters, natural floodplain, and upland forest areas 

that historically made the Missouri River one of the richest ecosystems on earth. 

We appreciate your consideration of the following topics concerning current and 

future Missouri River management issues: 

1) The Corps’ Overall Management 

2) Suggestions for Future Management 

3) The Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) 

4) The Need for Improved Stream Gauges to Aid in Runoff Forecasting 

5) Recreation 

6) Navigation 

7) River Bed Degradation 

8) Sedimentation 

9) Aquatic Invasive Species 

Overall Management 

The League realizes the tremendous paradox the Army Corps of Engineers faces 

each year related to water management on the Missouri River. Flood control is the 

only one of the eight authorized purposes that requires removing water from the 

reservoir system. The other seven authorized purposes all require storing water in 

the reservoir system. Another complex management issue for the Corps is that only 

53 percent of the Missouri River Basin is regulated by the six mainstem reservoirs. 

That leaves roughly half the basin largely unregulated and subject to regular flooding, regardless of what is proposed in the Corps’ Annual Operating Plan (AOP) or 

any other management action. The League urges the Corps to increase communication with the public about this fact to help educate people that it doesn’t, and can’t, 

control the runoff in the entire basin. Despite the agency’s best efforts, periodic 

flooding will occur along stretches of the lower river. 

Future Management 

The League continues to encourage the Corps to always look outside the box and 

‘‘re-think’’ rather than just ‘‘re-build’’ man-made flood control structures that repeatedly fail. We believe it’s time to look at non-structural alternatives to levees. We 

wholeheartedly support increasing levee setbacks and completing additional river 

widening projects, like the Deer Island Project north of Omaha-Council Bluffs that 

gives the Missouri River more room to roam. This will provide additional flood risk 

reduction to the lower basin and reduce the stage of the river during high flow periods. 

The Missouri River Master Manual calls for a 3,000 foot floodplain from Sioux 

City to Kansas City and a 5,000 foot floodplain from Kansas City to the mouth near 

St. Louis. The League has repeatedly urged the Corps to work with local governVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27317.TXT VERN
25 

ments on new zoning ordinances to implement this wider floodplain. This action 

would continually save taxpayer dollars and produce a healthier river by reestablishing needed floodplain connectivity. 

A reconnected floodplain will naturally produce and provide needed habitat for 

fish and wildlife thereby aiding recovery of threatened and endangered species. The 

naturally created habitat will also provide increased recreational opportunities for 

families in the basin. That boost from the recreation industry will have a positive 

economic impact and create many more year-round jobs. 

The incredible dynamics of the Missouri River Basin have been evident again this 

year. Many areas of the upper basin experienced severe to extreme and even exceptional drought conditions this spring and early summer. At the same time, flows out 

of the dams were at very high levels due to the Corps releasing water from high 

mountain snowpack. This huge hydrological swing demonstrates how quickly basin 

conditions change. The League believes these dramatic swings demonstrate the urgent need for a much more flexible approach to the day-to-day management of the 

Missouri River. 

We firmly believe the Corps’ management policies must be much more adaptable 

to the actual basin hydrologic conditions. We support changing and updating the 

Missouri River Master Manual so it would allow additional in-season adjustments 

to water releases. This would enable the Manual to accurately match the actual 

high or low runoff as each year unfolds. Critically important water management decisions, that ultimately impact all the residents of the basin, should not follow a 

‘‘locked in stone policy’’ set months before the actual runoff conditions are realized. 

Millions of people in the basin depend on the Missouri River and its resources for 

their livelihood and as an important component to their quality of life. That human 

demand, and the overall health of the river itself, require a much more modern, 

adaptable approach to water management than the current Master Manual policies 

permit. 

The current Master Manual review of water in storage in the reservoir system to 

determine navigation support and season length does not adequately address the 

needs of residents in the basin. Basin conditions can, and do, change rapidly. Additional timely reviews throughout the spring and summer months are urgently needed to accurately determine the proper amount of releases from the reservoir system 

every year. 

The League would also enthusiastically support a comprehensive review of the 

eight Missouri River Authorized Purposes in the FCA. We believe the eight purposes 

need to be thoroughly reviewed in terms of what is best for the American taxpayer 

as well as the needs of all the people in the entire Missouri River basin. This review 

should incorporate today’s economic values and priorities, instead of being limited 

to those included in the FCA. 

The Missouri River is still operating on a 70 year old business plan. This review 

of the eight authorized purposes is urgently needed and long overdue for the American taxpayer and for the river itself. The Missouri River basin is very different 

today compared to what was envisioned when the FCA was passed. Some of the authorized purposes meet or greatly surpass original expectations. For example, recreation today exceeds original FCA estimates by more than 10 times. 

Other purposes, however, have fallen well short of original expectations. Commercial navigation is less than one-tenth what the FCA estimated it would be, yet the 

Corps’ water management continues to favor navigation despite little or no barge 

traffic on the lower river. This dramatically demonstrates why this review needs to 

fully funded, completed, and recommendations from it sent to Congress to make 

long over-due changes in the FCA. 

A comprehensive review of the authorized purposes would be a prudent investment, one that would produce savings for the taxpayer in the future. A review and 

any subsequent changes would streamline future Corps operational expenses and it 

would finally bring Missouri River management into the 21st century. 

The Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) 

The League supports the Corps’ efforts in the Missouri River Recovery Program 

(MRRP). We believe the three federally listed species—the pallid sturgeon, least 

tern, and piping plover—are ‘‘poster children’’ for what is mostly an unhealthy river. 

Restoring a portion of the millions of acres of lost riverine habitat will not only benefit the listed species, but also help the 51 of 67 native fish species now listed as 

rare or declining on the river. 

The Corps worked hard to develop the new Missouri River Recovery Management 

Plan (MRRMP). The plan’s Draft Environmental Impact State (DEIS) was released 

in December. The plan included six proposed alternatives for Missouri River recovery. This Federal action will include activities designed to recover the Missouri 

River species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and will 

26 

be conducted pursuant to the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the 

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, 1999, and 2007. 

This authority includes Section 3176 of WRDA 2007 that expanded the Corps’ authority for recovery and mitigation activities in the upper basin states of Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All these authorities have been combined into the MRRP. 

In our comments on the MRRMP-DEIS the League shared our concerns on the 

Corps’ preferred alternative, Alternative 3. We feel this alternative relies too heavily 

on mechanically constructed habitat and is too dependent on receiving future Federal funding. We believe this leaves needed habitat recovery extremely vulnerable 

to future Federal budget cuts which would make species and river recovery highly 

unlikely. 

We would like to see the Corps incorporate additional recovery options that, in 

selected areas, lets the river do some of the work and recover fish and wildlife habitat on its own. The League also believes the Corps should strive to change the status quo on the Missouri River. We strongly urge the development of recovery alternatives that will ensure the long-term survival and recovery of a self-sustaining population of the listed and other native species. We believe this would greatly improve 

the overall health of the river, reduce flood risk, and increase water quality and recreational opportunities. 

The League supports the efforts of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation 

Committee (MRRIC). The committee was authorized in section 5018 of WRDA 2007. 

The League was an original member of the MRRIC and continues to have a high 

level of involvement with the committee. The MRRIC is made up of representatives 

from a wide variety of basin stakeholder interests as well as state, tribal, and Federal representatives. MRRIC provides guidance to the Corps and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) on current and future actions of the MRRP for the listed species on the river. Through the MRRIC, the Corps is now working collaboratively 

with tribes, Federal and State agencies, and other stakeholders throughout the Missouri River basin. 

The League believes a thorough analysis of all the recovery actions through the 

adaptive management plan will ensure that all future management decisions and 

actions are continuously improved. Updating and incorporating what is learned 

through regular and comprehensive scientific monitoring of the river will provide 

benefits to the listed species and lead to the recovery of portions of the habitat lost 

and/or destroyed along the Missouri River. 

Much of the MRRP efforts have occurred within the area of the BSNP. This is 

to mitigate for the destruction of over 522,000 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat between Sioux City and St. Louis. The League encourages the Corps to continue 

implementing recovery efforts in this area and to strive to reconnect portions of the 

lower river with its historic flood plain. 

The League also urges the Corps to consider other areas along the river, as authorized in Section 3176 of WRDA 2007, for recovery efforts. We feel this will improve recovery opportunities for the listed and other imperiled species by putting 

recovery projects across a much wider geographic area. This will increase public 

support of the MRRP by having projects on the ground in multiple states. 

The loss of wetlands along the Missouri River has impacted the historic migration 

corridor for waterfowl and other bird species. The League supports restoring the 

wetland habitat needed to attract and maintain historic migrating waterfowl populations, providing hunting and birdwatching opportunities that will provide significant economic benefits throughout the region. 

The wetland loss along the river has also contributed to increased water quality 

problems. This adds to water treatment costs and further complicates species recovery. League members, especially those in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota, want 

the river’s natural attributes, including wetlands, backwaters, side channels, chutes, 

and islands, to return to portions of the lower river. These areas are capable of producing both long-term ecological and economic benefits. 

The League supports the Corps’ efforts to restore some of the natural features and 

dynamics of the Missouri River. 

We encourage the Corps to continue the BSNP mitigation program and acquire 

land from willing sellers to develop additional shallow water and terrestrial habitat. 

The League supports projects that restore SWH. However, to achieve full recovery 

potential, the revetments that have been placed across the openings of previously 

constructed side chutes need to be opened. This will allow the chutes to function 

as they were designed. Re-opening chutes that have either been closed or silted in 

will provide some sorely needed SWH for many native fish and wildlife species along 

the lower river. The restoration efforts will have positive impacts on all fish and 

wildlife throughout the region. 

27 

Studies conducted by the FWS and other agencies show that over twice as many 

fish species are utilizing the created SWH areas than use the navigation channel. 

A Corps’ study also shows that the emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) projects have 

had tremendous response from nesting terns and plovers. These habitat restoration 

projects are working with the river—not against it. 

The recovery projects have also been a boon for the river. Anglers, hunters, boaters, birdwatchers, and others have been using these areas proving the old adage ‘‘if 

you build it, they will come.’’ The Missouri Department of Conservation and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission concluded in a recent study that recreational 

spending provides $68 million in annual economic impact to areas along the Missouri River between Yankton, SD and St. Louis, MO. With additional habitat recovery projects, even more people will come to spend time on or along the river. 

In addition to the economic boost from outdoor recreation, restoration projects provide broader economic benefits throughout the entire region. These projects involve 

restoring and creating habitat for terns, plovers, and pallid sturgeon in the basin. 

To perform this work, the Corps contracts with local construction companies. This 

creates or maintains jobs that inject money into local economies through purchases 

of materials, fuel, food, and lodging. With robust annual funding for the MRRP, the 

Corps could readily implement more of these important economic and ecological restoration projects. 

To successfully complete necessary recovery plans, the League supports fee title 

acquisition of land from willing landowners. We believe fee-title acquisition should 

be used when major restoration work is needed to improve the ecological function 

of the river or when public access is anticipated or desired. We urge Congress to 

appropriate the needed funds for the Corps to get back on track with the BSNP 

habitat mitigation effort outlined in previous WDRAs and other legislation for areas 

in the lower basin. 

We also want to see more recreational and educational opportunities in the new 

recovery management plan. Recreation should be compatible with wildlife but could 

include canoeing, kayaking, boating, fishing, hunting, and hiking trails. This will 

encourage use by schools, scouts, groups, and families that want to learn more about 

the nation’s longest river. 

The League also favors of the Corps working on restoration projects in cooperation 

with State agencies, including the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and the South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks. The Corps should also look for additional support through other 

partnerships and volunteers. 

The League also requests the Corps address the following in future recovery efforts: Water Quality—Is water quality in the Missouri River or from any of its tributaries a contributing factor to low reproduction of the endangered pallid sturgeon 

or for the 51 of 67 native fish species now listed as rare or declining along the Missouri River? 

Water Supply—Can recovery actions be developed that more closely mimic the historic flows of the Missouri River, flows that are beneficial to native fish and wildlife 

species including the listed species? 

Genetic Diversity—Can recovery actions be developed that will preserve and protect the genetic diversity of the upper basin population of pallid sturgeon? 

Recreational Access—Can recovery actions be developed that also connect more of 

the river to its flood plain and connect more people to the river? The public needs 

many more areas where they can access the river to hunt, fish, birdwatch and just 

enjoy the river with family or friends. When you get people on or near the river, 

they will be much more likely to support the activities that improve the health of 

the river. 

Stream Gauges—Runoff Forecasting 

The League commends the Corps for engaging with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the National Weather Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and other Federal, State and local agencies to increase monitoring 

of plains and mountain snowpack water content, soil moisture, and frost depth to 

more accurately determine the actual annual runoff. 

However, we are disappointed that the Corps has still not asked Congress to provide robust investment in modern stream gauges to accurately monitor flows in the 

Missouri River’s tributaries and the snow water equivalent in the upper basin. This 

enhanced monitoring would enable the best data possible for forecasting annual runoff across the basin. We also encourage the Corps and other agencies to incorporate 

data dealing with climate change and its impacts, both wet and dry, when completing future runoff scenarios and developing the Annual Operating Plan. 

28 

To improve annual water management within the basin, the League encourages 

the Corps to utilize every tool available. Tools that consider hydrological and economic factors such as water supply, collection, storage and diversion, withdrawal, 

consumption, and water requirements in the river basin. We believe the Corps 

needs to implement medium and long-term water management planning in order to 

avoid potential conflicts over water management for the basin. 

Recreation 

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks has conducted studies 

that show the annual economic benefits from recreation on the Missouri River in 

the Dakotas and Montana are greater than $100 million. That huge economic impact exceeds by more than ten times the 1944 Flood Control Act’s original expectations for recreation. 

The recreation industry on the Missouri River is a major economic engine, one 

critical for local, regional, and national businesses. With that positive impact and 

for quality of life issues, League members remain concerned about the overall health 

of the fisheries in the system’s reservoirs. Our members have particular concerns 

about the fisheries in the big three reservoirs: Fort Peck Lake in Montana, Lake 

Sakakawea in North Dakota, and Lake Oahe in North and South Dakota. The 

record high releases in 2011 flushed a tremendous amount of forage fish, chiefly 

rainbow smelt, out of Lake Oahe. Stable or rising reservoir levels in the big three 

reservoirs are essential in the spring and in the early summer. These are needed 

to facilitate recruitment of forage fish populations. 

The League supports the Corps’ current management approach for the big three 

reservoirs in which it attempts to raise water levels in at least one of these reservoirs each spring. Given the economic importance of the recreation industry and 

how dependent that industry is on a healthy fishery, we encourage the Corps, when 

possible, to raise or at least hold reservoir levels steady each spring in all of the 

big three reservoirs. 

The Missouri River reservoirs provides world-class recreational opportunities for 

residents and hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. Those opportunities generate abundant income for businesses across the Nation. The recreation industry 

produces and sustains thousands of yearround jobs for people in and out of the 

basin. 

Navigation 

The League believes water is the most fragile natural resource in the Missouri 

River basin. In most years, water is in very short supply, especially in the semiarid upper basin. In years of average or, even more importantly, below average 

basin runoff, the League supports the Corps meeting navigation flow targets with 

reservoir releases if and only if commercial navigation traffic is actually going to be 

on that reach of the Missouri River. 

Navigation is the single largest consumer of Missouri River water annually. However, navigation continues to fall dramatically short of its yearly shipping tonnage 

expectations. According to the General Accountability Office (GAO), the vast majority of the Missouri River navigation traffic, mostly comprised of sand and gravel, 

travels less than 10 miles. The League believes a tremendous economic and ecological burden is placed on the rest of the basin to supply valuable water to move sand 

and gravel only a few miles on the lower river. 

We also believe this water conservation policy should be made effective not just 

when portions of the basin are in severe drought, but every year that runoff is expected to be at or below the long-term average. Adopting this policy would save the 

basin millions of acre feet of water. Once water is released from the reservoir system, it’s gone from the system forever. During previous prolonged droughts, upper 

basin states have spent millions of dollars ‘‘chasing water.’’ Examples include having 

to extend or relocate boat ramps and water intakes in the reservoir system to maintain access critical for the recreation industry and for irrigation and domestic water 

systems. 

The League acknowledges and agrees with the importance of getting the reservoir 

system out of the Exclusive Flood Control Zone each year, but we ask that the Corps 

begin to implement conservation measures each year once that goal is met. 

Riverbed Degradation 

The League supports efforts to address riverbed degradation, or down cutting, of 

the Missouri River. Riverbed degradation is having substantial negative impact on 

public and private infrastructure, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Riverbed degradation has also led to a drop in groundwater elevations 

along areas of the lower river, which is impacting water wells and the functionality 

of nearby wetlands. The League believes the BSNP needs to be thoroughly evaluated. The BSNP is maintained by a series of wing dikes and revetments, which have 

29 

created a ‘‘self-scouring’’ channel. The League and many others believe the BSNP 

is actually over-engineered and is a major contributor to bed degradation. We would 

like this issue closely examined to see what would happen if some of the BSNP 

structures were removed. We believe that would allow the river to start to heal 

itself. 

We also encourage the Corps to consider what impact commercial sand dredging 

in the Kansas City area is having on the riverbed in that reach. Is that activity having an impact on the bridges, utility crossings, water intakes, and other infrastructure? Also what is the impact of that activity on native fish and wildlife habitat? 

The League is very concerned about how riverbed degradation is impacting the 

Missouri’s tributaries. The beds of many tributaries are also dropping as they seek 

to match the same elevation as the decreasing Missouri River bed. How is this impacting the health of the tributaries and what impact is this tributary bed degradation having on the other authorized purposes and overall health of the Missouri 

River? The cost to maintain infrastructure along the Missouri River in areas with 

severe bed degradation will only continue to increase if these problems are not corrected. 

Sedimentation 

The League also has serious concerns about the amount of sediment accumulating 

in the six main stem reservoirs. We urge the Corps to work with State and Federal 

agencies to reduce the sediment coming into the reservoirs by encouraging landowners to utilize conservation methods that reduce soil erosion. We also support efforts by the Corps to explore options to reduce and transport the previously accumulated sediment within the upper ends of the reservoirs. The accumulated sediment 

decreases reservoir storage capacity, negatively impacting flood control and decreasing hydropower capabilities. The excess sediment in the reservoirs also has tremendous negative impacts on forage and game fish spawning success and, at times, 

boating access. We encourage the Corps to find a cost-effective method to transport 

the excess sediment downstream to the sediment-starved lower Missouri River and 

beyond to the Gulf of Mexico as it historically traveled. 

Invasive Species 

The League requests the Corps take the steps necessary to control the spread of 

invasive plant and animal species in and along the Missouri River. Invasive species 

are crowding out native species and are hurting the overall health of the river. The 

League strongly encourages the Corps to work collaboratively with the State agencies to develop a long range plan that utilizes aggressive control measures to contain 

invasive plant and animal species. Asian carp and zebra mussels are two primary 

species of concern. Steps must be implemented to keep these species and all other 

invasives from being moved to other waters. For the future viability of the Missouri 

River, we must do everything possible to stop the spread of invasive species now. 

Summary 

The members of the Izaak Walton League of America believe the Missouri River 

is a national treasure. It’s one of the nation’s most unique rivers, well worth protecting and enhancing for this and future generations. The League believes a 

healthy Missouri River provides benefits to throughout the basin and beyond. The 

Missouri is an incredible economic engine that, if managed correctly and for multiple uses, would create even more jobs and tax revenue for local and State governments, and additional recreational opportunities for families not just along the river, 

but across the Nation. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Lepisto. I’ll 

now follow up with some questions for each of you. I’d like to begin 

with Mayor Harding. Mayor Harding, in your testimony you described the federal water permitting process as ′′challenging to 

navigate.′′ I also understand that it has proven to be financially 

burdensome. Do you have suggestions as to how this permitting 

process can be made easier for communities such as Pierre? 

Mayor HARDING. Mr. Chairman, I would turn to the city engineer 

that has been really involved in that entire process, if that would 

be possible. 

Senator ROUNDS. You know, let me just have youtake it for the 

record, and if you could come back and offer some suggestions, we 

would certainly appreciate that. 

30 

Mayor HARDING. Absolutely. Be happy to. Yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. Great. Thank you. I was struck by—Mr. Mayor, 

I was struck by the relatively low volume of water needed for irrigation that you described in your testimony. You cite two-thousandths of a percent or basically one and a half cubic foot per second as the amount which has been authorized by the State of 

South Dakota. How did the City of Pierre determine that figure, 

and why do you think the small amount of water is so problematic 

for the Corps? Once again, we’re talking about one and a half cubic 

foot per second where the average flow that we’re talking about 

right now through is 33,000 cubic foot per second. Share with me 

a little bit, why do you think that’s so problematic? What’s the 

feedback that you’ve received? 

Mayor HARDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re only asking to 

irrigate the green space in our parks along the River. So that—and 

only between those dates. I believe it was April through November. 

So it wasn’t even for a year at a time.The amount of—with the natural rainfall and what we would use out of the River, that’s how 

we determined that, that—and the amount of grass that we would 

irrigate. 

Senator ROUNDS. It wasn’t a large amount. 

Mayor HARDING. No. 

Senator ROUNDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Goodman, in 

your testimony you discuss how the moratorium on the easements 

to the Missouri River reservoirs resulted in 90 percent of the River 

becoming off limits to South Dakotans. Can you explain the impact 

this has had on the State and, in particular, what impact this has 

had on the economy in South Dakota? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Chairman Rounds. To indicate or to 

give a couple examples of some of the impacts, because we’ve had 

some operations that have not been able to access the water in the 

reservoir, they have had to look at other options. An example 

would be a construction project near the town of Oacoma. They 

were working on a road project within probably 10 to 15 yards of 

the Missouri River -or the lake at that point. They wanted to pump 

water to use for dust control and other things associated with the 

construction project. They were not able to access orget an access 

easement to that water for the project so they had to haul in water. 

That was one example. A very small example. It would impact anyone—for example, the City of Pierre is not able to look at a cost 

saving measure for irrigating their green space, as we’ve heard and 

as Mayor Harding has talked about. Those are just two small examples that we’ve had issues with when we issue a water right 

from the State of South Dakota that they also need to then get access to the River and are not able to do that. What the economic 

impact is, Senator, I don’t have a number to put to that, but those 

two small examples are probably an indication of the types of dollars that we could be talking about. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Also in your testimony, Ms. Goodman, you discussed the improvements in communication that have 

been made between the Corps and stakeholders throughout the 

flood season, this last flood season. Are there any other areas that 

can be improved in terms of communication regarding snowpack 

levels between the Corps and local stakeholders? 

31 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Senator Rounds. As I indicated, we 

are very appreciative of theincreased communication, especially 

during the flood season or potential flood season. That has been 

very helpful. The improvements to the website and the information 

available on the website is very helpful and very useful to us as 

we look through the spring season and what we can anticipate 

through spring flows. As I indicated, increased information on 

plains snowpack, any drought monitoring, could certainly—or is 

certainly needed, and we support that. That being done by a federal agency and being available via internet and website access to 

the rest of us would be very, very helpful as we also look at our 

water use and management of the Missouri River. 

Senator ROUNDS. Ms. Goodman, are you aware of the rapidly 

fluctuating water levels along the Missouri River, and do you or 

does your Department have any concerns regarding damage to 

wildlife populations as a result of water levels increasing or decreasing several feet overnight on a consistent basis? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Senator Rounds, we are aware of the fluctuating 

water levels. Obviously since 2011 I think we all in this area have 

a much heightened awareness of what’s happening in our River 

here and in Lake Sharpe as well as Lake Oahe. So, yes, we are 

allattuned to what’s happening. As far as wildlife implications, 

that’s certainly not within our purview of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. We work closely with our sister 

agency in State Government, Department of Game, Fish & Parks, 

on some of those issues. And I cannot speak to anything on that 

this morning, Senator Rounds, but if you would like further information, I could certainly look into that for you. 

Senator ROUNDS. I would accept that for the record. Thank you. 

And I’d like to finish just, Ms. Goodman, what’s the status of communication between the Corps and State Government regarding 

the issue of management of the natural flows through the reservoir? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Chairman Rounds, the current communication is 

we certainly communicate with our counterparts in the Corps, both 

in Omaha as well as the—as our local contacts here with the Corps 

of Engineers. We have not had any further conversations with 

them or communications with them since at least a year ago on 

the—on the Policy Letter No. 26 that you have referred to and the 

access easements that are related to that, as well as the natural 

flows. We have indicated to them through the Governor—Governor 

Daugaard’s letter on the proposed rulemaking regarding our impressions and our intent of looking at natural flows and using our 

authority under state law to issue permits under natural flows, but 

we have not had any further conversation recently. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Mr. Lepisto, first of all, thank you 

very much for coming in and participating in this hearing. In your 

testimony, sir, you said that the Corps should be looking at the potential benefits of nonstructural alternatives to levies. Can you explain the benefits of nonstructural alternatives and what it would 

have on fund control? 

Mr. LEPISTO. We believe that nonstructural alternatives, Mr. 

Chairman, will reduce the flood stage on the lower River because 

the River would, as I mentioned, have room to roam. It would 

32 

spread out, thus lessening the height, taking stress off of infrastructure downstream alleviating some of the pressure on both federal and private levy systems within those areas. Of course, this 

would have to be done in areas with willing landowners and areas 

that would be set up to accommodate this. But this would have 

great benefits for floodplain conductivity, reestablishment of wetlands, thewhole natural river bottom, which I mentioned in our testimony this morning, that have been lost or destroyed with all the 

changes on the River. 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Lepisto, in your testimony you discuss the 

changing conditions of the basin and that that may require the 

need for a more flexible approach to the day-to-day management of 

the River. Can you elaborate on what flexibility should be built into 

management of the River and how this allow the Corps to more effectively respond to events in the basin? 

Mr. LEPISTO. Well, currently in the master manual, Mr. Chair, 

the Corps looks at what water is in storage in early March and 

then again on July 1 to set the release rates for navigation flow 

support. We feel that a lot can change in the dynamics and the hydrology of the Missouri River Basin, since it is so large, between 

March and July 1. And without being able to make in-season adjustments, which the current master manual does not allow them 

to do, they can’t react. Their policy is locked in stone because 

they’ve set it on March 1 and until July 1. That’s it. The master 

manual needs to be changed to give them that flexibility in a high 

flow year to make adjustments and, more importantly, in a low 

flow year to be able to change that flow release rate to conserve 

water for all the seven purposes that need that. So that little provision in the master manual would benefit everybody in the basin. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Also in your testimony, Mr. 

Lepisto, you say that we should undertake a comprehensive review 

of the authorized purposes of the River and that this could provide 

more savings for taxpayers. Can you explain the benefit of reviewing the authorized purposes of the River and how this would save 

taxpayer dollars? 

Mr. LEPISTO. Basically the Missouri River, Mr. Chairman, as you 

know, is operating on a 70 year old business plan. What business 

on Main Street or anywhere else in South Dakota or any of the 

other states of the basin is still operating on something that was 

drawn up in 1944? Times have changed. Expectations were one 

thing when the ’44 Flood Control Act was drafted. Yeah. This will 

work. We expect it to do this. And here we are seven decades later, 

and some of the authorized purposes haven’t come close to meeting 

those 1944 expectations. Navigation is one-tenth of what the framework -or the writers of that ’44 Flood Control Act thought it would 

do. Yet it’s the biggest user of Missouri River water year in and 

year out. Why? Why hasn’t that -that been looked at, seriously 

looked at and reviewed, in seven decades. We’re still operating on 

what was expected of the system 70 years ago, and it’s long overdue, in our opinion, that the authorized purposes go through a 

thorough review. That was started several years ago in a program 

called the Missouri River Authorized Purpose Study. That was 

defunded in an appropriation—eleventh hour appropriation act. 

And with each continuing resolution that provision that keeps that 

33 

authorized purpose study defunded remains. And we’ve been under 

continuing resolutions, as you well know, for years and years and 

years in the annual budget process. But we would highly encourage 

that funding to come back so MRAPS can take a serious look and 

long overdue look at the eight authorized purposes and finally 

bring Missouri River management into the 21st Century. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Finally, in your testimony you discussed the record high releases in 2011 and the impact that it had 

on fish in Lake Oahe. Are you aware of the current releases along 

the Missouri, and do you have concerns that these abnormal fluctuations in water level couldimpact the fish and wildlife population 

along the River? 

Mr. LEPISTO. That is a concern of ours, Mr. Chair. And I have 

been in communication with a—as Ms. Goodman mentioned, South 

Dakota Game, Fish & Parks, with some of their biologists. And 

they have been -have had some concerns particularly with water 

temperatures. When we have high releases where the water is 

withdrawn from Oahe Reservoir it’s very cold water that’s coming 

into the upper end of Lake Sharpe. So biologists have been concerned on what that may do to this year’s reproduction of gizzard 

shad, a primary forage species in Lake Sharpe. They won’t know 

that until they do their fall surveys on the recruitment and what 

the young of the year population is. So that is yet to be determined 

probably in late September or October. But there have been both 

positive and negative impacts to recreation and to anglers this 

summer because of the high flows. Some boat ramps, particularly 

downstream of the Pierre/Ft. Pierre area, that are difficult to use 

under ′′normal conditions′′ of Lake Sharpe have been usable this 

year with the higher flows. But then some shore fishermen in the 

tailrace area right below Oahe Dam have not had much success because the current—or the discharge is so rapid that it’s very difficult for them to fish successfully in that very popular shore fishing opportunity right upstream from your home. 

Senator ROUNDS. Very good. I want to thank all of our witnesses 

today for their participation in this hearing. I would make note 

that in the back of the room there is a sign-up sheet on the lectern. 

And just in case anybody that’s here in the room is interested in 

this particular issue or these issues that we’ve talked about and 

they’d like to receive updates, please make sure that you’ve signed 

in and we’ll be happy to put you on our list for updating the information. There are a couple of items that I will include and make 

note right now, including, for the record, Senator Carper who is the 

ranking member of the full committee has sent me a statement to 

be included for the record. Senator Harris, who is the ranking 

member on this committee, has also sent me a statement which we 

will accept for the record. And the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s 

Association Resolution Opposing Any Changes to Corps Policy that 

Negatively Impact Tribal Water Rights will also be accepted without objection for the record. This concludes our discussion today. I 

just, once again, want to thank everybody who is participating with 

us in this hearing. Our goal is to bring back into the—for the local 

community an opportunity to hear firsthand from the Corps what 

is happening with regard to the flow of this River that we live with 

every single day. And I most certainly appreciate all the comments, 

34 

thoughts, suggestions of all of our witnesses here today. So, once 

again, thank you to our witnesses for taking time to be with us 

today. The record for this meeting will be open for two weeks, 

which brings us to Tuesday, September 5. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

SOUTH DAKOTA

Subcommittee Chairman Rounds, thank you for holding an oversight hearing in 

the Committee. It is extremely important for us to examine how Federal agencies 

within our Committee’s jurisdiction are implementing legislative direction we have 

provided, such as the Water Resources Development Acts. 

As you know, the President has called for the modernization and rebuilding of 

America’s aged-out infrastructure, and Democratic Senators released a blueprint for 

addressing infrastructure challenges earlier this year. I believe that members on 

both sides of the aisle support legislative actions to address this problem, but before 

we write legislation, we need to do thorough oversight of problems that may require 

additional investments such as the flooding issues associated with the Missouri 

River. 

In the winter of 2010 and 2011, a record level of snow fell in the northern United 

States Rocky Mountains and into the Northern Plains states. In May and early 

June, the snow, which had not melted earlier in the cool spring, rapidly melted and 

combined with a huge rainfall throughout Montana and western North Dakota. As 

a result, extensive flooding occurred in the Missouri and Souris River basins from 

June through August of that year. Major flooding caused over $2 billion dollars in 

damages and five fatalities. 

At a 2016 EPW Subcommittee hearing, the Committee learned that the Army 

Corps of Engineers had made little progress toward implementation of a legislatively required snowpack monitoring network because they had not submitted an 

appropriations request to Congress for the program. Further, the Corps lacked clarity as to which agency should take the lead on implementing the network, as it was 

a joint effort with other agencies. 

In response to the need for program clarity, the most recently passed Water Resources Development Act included language that directs the U.S. Army Corps to be 

the lead agency for coordinating snow pack monitoring network in the Upper Missouri River Basin. 

From today’s testimony, I would like to learn more from the Corps as to whether 

elements of the Missouri River Management program should be replicated in other 

areas of the country. While traditional forms of infrastructure, like roads and ports, 

are essential to our economy, I feel we need more investment to protect our natural 

infrastructure as well, such as enhancing our shorelines and restoring ecosystems. 

Without natural infrastructure, storm and flood risks to man-made infrastructure 

significantly increase and, in many cases, become unmanageable. 

I am also interested in learning the latest as to how the Federal Government can 

be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by increasing the efficiency of our current 

funding streams to get the most out of every dollar of Federal investment. Infrastructure is a shared responsibility with States, and as a former Governor, I want 

to help the states and local governments with this shared burden. I also want to 

learn more about how we can make sure that we are prioritizing the most critical 

investments in our country’s infrastructure. 

There is no one size fits all approach to solving this problem. We must work together, in a constructive and bipartisan way, to really address these concerns and 

build consensus on a path forward for this shared State-Federal-Local government 

responsibility to our economy and our citizens. Further, we must also be good stewards of our environment and do everything we can to support and preserve wildlife 

by developing projects that also restore habitats. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing and I look 

forward to learning from our witnesses, who I would also like to thank for taking 

the time to share their expertise on these pressing issues. 

Æ