U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–415 PDF 2012

THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOOD: AN ASSESSMENT 

OF THE RIVER MANAGEMENT IN 2011 AND 

OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR THE FUTURE 

(112–62) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Hon. Tom Latham, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa ......... 29 

Hon. Rick Berg, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota ........................................................................................................................ 29

Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa ............ 29 

Hon. Lynn Jenkins, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas .... 29 

Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 29

Hon. Kristi L. Noem, a Representative in Congress from the State of South 

Dakota ................................................................................................................... 29 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 29

Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri ................................................................................................................ 29 

Hon. Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska .................................................................................................................... 29 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska ...... 29 

PANEL TWO

Brigadier General John R. McMahon, Commander, Northwestern Division, 

United States Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................ 83 

Kathy J. Kunkel, County Clerk, Holt County, Missouri ...................................... 83 

Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association ..... 83 

Brad Lawrence, Director of Public Works, City of Fort Pierre, South Dakota ... 83 

Richard Oswald, Fifth-generation Missouri Family Farmer, and President, 

Missouri Farmers Union ..................................................................................... 83 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. W. Todd Akin, of Missouri ............................................................................. 117 

Hon. Leonard L. Boswell, of Iowa .......................................................................... 118 

Hon. Russ Carnahan, of Missouri .......................................................................... 120 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 125 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

PANEL ONE

Hon. Tom Latham .................................................................................................... 126 

Hon. Rick Berg ......................................................................................................... 130 

Hon. Steve King ....................................................................................................... 133 

Hon. Lynn Jenkins 1 ................................................................................................

Hon. Vicky Hartzler 1 ..............................................................................................

Hon. Kristi L. Noem ................................................................................................ 137 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver ............................................................................................ 141 

Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer ....................................................................................... 145 

Hon. Jeff Fortenberry 1 ............................................................................................

Hon. Lee Terry ......................................................................................................... 148 

PANEL TWO

Brigadier General John R. McMahon .................................................................... 150 

Page

VI 

Kathy J. Kunkel ....................................................................................................... 162 

Tom Waters .............................................................................................................. 168 

Brad Lawrence ......................................................................................................... 178 

Richard Oswald ........................................................................................................ 182 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, request 

to submit the following for the record: 

Blake Hurst, President, Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, letter 

to Hon. Bob Gibbs, November 29, 2011 ............................................... 4 

American Society of Civil Engineers, written statement ....................... 5 

Andrew Fahlund, Senior Vice President for Conservation, American 

Rivers, letter to Hon. Bob Gibbs and Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, 

November 29, 2011 ................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, request to submit the following for the record: 

Dr. Andrea A. Hunter, Director of the Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office, written statement ........................................................... 16 

Daniel Overbey, Executive Director, Southeast Missouri Regional 

Port Authority, ‘‘Flood Damage to the Ports Located on the Mississippi River,’’ written statement ........................................................ 23 

Rowan W. Gould, Deputy Director, United States Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, letter to Hon. Timothy 

H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, November 29, 2011 ...................................................................... 75 

Melissa Samet, Senior Water Resources Counsel, National Wildlife 

Federation, written statement .............................................................. 77 

Hon. Tom Latham, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

request to submit ‘‘State of Iowa Input: Missouri River Management and 

Flood Recovery Efforts,’’ sent to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure from Brigadier General J. Derek Hill, Chair, Iowa Missouri 

River Recovery Coordination Task Force ........................................................... 30 

Hon. Rick Berg, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota, request to submit the following for the record: 

‘‘BNSF Fights the Rising Tide, Begins to Restore Network Momentum,’’ Railway, The Employee Magazine of Team BNSF, Summer 

2011 ......................................................................................................... 42 

Hon. Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota, written testimony 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public scoping meeting on 

the Missouri River Annual Operating Plan, November 1, 2011 ........ 46 

Hon. Kristi L. Noem, a Representative in Congress from the State of South 

Dakota, request to submit the following for the record: 

Hon. Laurie R. Gill, Mayor of Pierre, South Dakota, written testimony ....................................................................................................... 56 

Jeff Dooley, Manager, Dakota Dunes Community Improvement District, South Dakota, written testimony ................................................ 64 

Kim Blaeser, Homeowner and Treasurer, Riv-r-Land Homeowners 

Association, South Dakota, written testimony .................................... 66 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, photographs of the KCP&L plant before and after the Missouri River 

flood ....................................................................................................................... 191 

Brad Lawrence, Director of Public Works, City of Fort Pierre, South Dakota, 

‘‘The Missouri River Flood of 2011,’’ narrative .................................................. 193 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Hon. Jim Suttle, Mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, written statement ...................... 211 

1 Representatives Jenkins, Hartzler, and Fortenberry did not submit written 

statements. 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 71415.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 71415.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 71415.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 71415.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 71415.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 71415.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 71415.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 71415.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 71415.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 71415.010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 71415.011
xviii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 71415.012
(1) 

THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOOD: AN 

ASSESSMENT OF THE RIVER MANAGEMENT 

IN 2011 AND OPERATIONAL PLANS 

FOR THE FUTURE 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:06 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The subcommittee hearing of Water Resources and 

Environment will come to order. Thank you for being here today. 

I will start with my opening statement, and we will move on to the 

ranking majority’s opening statement. 

This hearing is for the Missouri River flood. It is an assessment 

of river management in 2011 and operational plans for the future. 

I would like to welcome everyone today in hearing the Missouri 

River flood and assessment, as I just said, and the operational 

plans for the future. 

At the dedication ceremony of the Oahe Dam in South Dakota in 

1962, President Kennedy made the following statement: ‘‘We take 

for granted these miracles of engineering. And too often we see no 

connection between this dam right here and our Nation’s security 

and our leadership all around the world. The facts of the matter 

are that this dam and many more like it are essential to the expansion and growth of the American economy as a measure that Congress is now considering. And this dam and others like it are essential to our national strength and security, as any military alliance 

or missile complex.’’ 

I believe President Kennedy and his generation understood that 

public infrastructure is important to our economy, and a strong 

economy is vital to our national security. As we go through these 

difficult economic times, we must not forget that some Federal investments are valuable. 

I would like to remind members of the subcommittee and those 

in the audience that in November 2011 we marked the 25th anniversary of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. This landmark law has provided the Nation with a new paradigm for the development of water resource projects. WRDA 86 required that most 

projects be planned and constructed with a non-Federal partner 

2 

that would share in the cost. With local public entities taking a bigger role in projects, we have been able to leverage the Federal dollars and build projects that better fit the local needs. 

In spite of the fact that non-Federal partners now are paying a 

significant portion of the project cost, we have not taken steps to 

recapitalize the water resources infrastructure that previous generations have entrusted to us. Investing some of our limited Federal dollars in flood protection and navigation infrastructure not 

only provides jobs during the construction period, but also provides 

economic benefits that save more jobs once the project is completed. 

One needs only to look at the national, regional, and local economic benefits that have flowed from the water resources project 

on the Missouri River to appreciate the value of the Corps projects. 

Given the significant economic benefits that come from investing in 

flood protection and navigation infrastructure, I believe the Federal 

Government should focus its Corps of Engineers dollars on those 

activities and halt, for a while, investing in environmental restoration projects that do not provide the long-term jobs we so desperately need right now. 

This concern has been made even acute by the fact that the damages to levees and other flood protection infrastructure caused by 

the Missouri River flood, Hurricane Irene, and other disasters this 

year must be quickly repaired to prevent damages next year. And 

currently, the Corps has to pay for these repairs by taking money 

from other projects. The Corps should not have to be deciding 

which projects to rob to pay for levee repairs. We in Congress and 

the President have to do a better job of getting the Corps the 

money they need for these important life and property-saving 

projects. 

The Missouri River Basin is the world’s third largest watershed, 

and drains 41 percent of the United States. There are six main 

stem reservoirs, many miles of levees, and other control structures 

that the Corps of Engineers uses to manage the river for eight separate—and many times competing—purposes. In managing the 

Missouri River system, the Corps has to balance its operations to 

address the needs of flood protection, navigation, municipal water 

supply, irrigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, and hydropower. 

The Corps has a master manual to guide its decisions, and they develop annual operational plans that reflect expected runoff for the 

season. 

Since records were kept beginning in 1887, the estimated 2011 

runoff of 61 million acre feet into the system easily exceeded the 

previous record of approximately 49 million acre feet set in 1997. 

Unprecedented runoff occurred in the basin in the months of May, 

June, and July of this year. The combined runoff from these 3 

months of 34.3 million acre feet is higher than the total annual 

runoff in 102 of 113 years in the period of record. 

The floods of 2011 damaged critical transportation infrastructure 

like roads, highways, bridges, airports, and rail lines. For instance, 

logistical problems caused by 2011 floods caused a Class I railroad, 

Burlington Northern Southern Santa Fe, to re-route up to 460 

trains per day for the duration of the floods. Worse still, thousands 

of Americans were flooded, some of them who lost their homes. MilVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:43 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-30-~1\71415.TXT JEAN
3 

lions have been impacted by these floods and, sadly, some have lost 

their lives. 

The system that was authorized in 1944 and completed in the 

early 1960s has provided flood control and other important benefits 

for many in the Missouri River Basin. Still, the system has not created a flood-free zone along the Missouri River. We have seen in 

the Gulf region what can happen when hurricane and flood protection infrastructure is inadequate or fails to perform. And now we 

have seen this type of event in the Missouri River, the Mississippi 

River, and the Ohio River. 

I believe the answers to these issues will come from a partnership between Federal and non-Federal public entities. I believe we 

should recapitalize the Nation’s flood damage reduction infrastructure, and believe we need to make policy changes to be sure that 

we are making the best investment of taxpayer dollars. 

At the same time, I believe local governments have got to make 

wise land use decisions in their communities that will keep homes 

and businesses out of harm’s way. 

I would like to thank the panel members for being here today 

and we examine the flood of 2011 and how the Corps is preparing 

for the future. 

At this time, I would also ask unanimous consent that the documents are put in the record from the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Rivers, 

the Honorable Lee Terry. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Hearing no objection, that will be so ordered. 

[Hon. Lee Terry’s statement is featured with the other witnesses’ 

statements—please refer to the ‘‘Prepared Statements Submitted 

by Witnesses’’ section of the table of contents. The other information follows:] 

4 


Insert offset folio 13 here 71415.013
5 


Insert offset folio 14 here 71415.014
6 


Insert offset folio 15 here 71415.015
7 


Insert offset folio 16 here 71415.016
8 


Insert offset folio 17 here 71415.017
9 


Insert offset folio 18 here 71415.018
10 


Insert offset folio 19 here 71415.019
11 


Insert offset folio 20 here 71415.020
12 


Insert offset folio 21 here 71415.021
13 


Insert offset folio 22 here 71415.022
14 


Insert offset folio 23 here 71415.023
15 

Mr. GIBBS. Also, I would like unanimous consent that committee 

members Sam Graves, Bill Long, and Leonard Boswell, who are not 

on the subcommittee but are on the T&I Committee, be allowed to 

sit and ask questions during this hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

At this time I welcome Mr. Carnahan as the ranking member for 

this hearing. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to acknowledge our ranking member, Mr. Bishop—sitting in for him 

briefly today—for holding this hearing. This is an issue that has 

been of critical importance to my constituents in the St. Louis region that live and work along the Mississippi River. I originally 

sent a letter to the committee requesting this hearing on May 5th. 

I am very thankful that the committee is convened here today to 

further investigate this issue. 

We also organized a briefing for colleagues on this very issue 

back in July. But it is important that the committee is here today, 

taking this formal action to investigate the flooding and to help 

plan for future events. 

I also want to thank you for inviting Richard Oswald, who will 

testify here today. He is from Atchison County, Missouri, in northwest Missouri. He will be able to give his personal account of the 

devastation brought on by these floods. And Mr. Oswald’s home, 

the one built by his parents, has flooded for the third time in his 

life because of the failure of our levee and reservoir system. This 

year Mr. Oswald could not return to his farm for months. His crop 

was ruined. The economy of his 1,200-person town, devastated. And 

his story is repeated countless times across the State. 

I also want to acknowledge some other Missourians that will be 

with us here on the later panel: Kathy Kunkel, the county clerk of 

Holt County, Missouri; and Tom Waters, chairman of the Missouri 

Levee and Drainage District Association. And it is great to have 

three of our colleagues from Missouri: Congresswoman Hartzler, 

Congressmen Luetkemeyer and Cleaver. 

This issue is bipartisan, it covers many States and regions, and 

it is very important, I think, we are here today doing this. 

I also want to ask unanimous consent to submit two other testimonies for the record for witnesses that could not be with us today. 

The first is the testimony of the Osage Nation. Levee breaches destroyed their sacred sites and spread human Native American remains over huge areas. And the tribulations experienced by the 

tribe help to remind us of the myriad effects of these floods, and 

the many factors that must be weighed when we deal with this in 

the future. 

I also want to submit the testimony of the Southeast Missouri 

Regional Port Authority, detailing the issues they faced covering 

these floods. 

Mr. GIBBS. And that is so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

16 


Insert offset folio 24 here 71415.024
17 


Insert offset folio 25 here 71415.025
18 


Insert offset folio 26 here 71415.026
19 


Insert offset folio 27 here 71415.027
20 


Insert offset folio 28 here 71415.028
21 


Insert offset folio 29 here 71415.029
22 


Insert offset folio 30 here 71415.030
23 


Insert offset folio 31 here 71415.031
24 


Insert offset folio 32 here 71415.032
25 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack—oh, sorry. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And just—if I may continue, Mr. Chairman—the 

Mississippi and Missouri River floods in April and May this year 

were among the deadliest and most damaging recorded along the 

waterway in the past century. Two major storm systems deposited 

record levels of rainfall on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 

was contributed with springtime snow melt, causing water levels to 

rise to unprecedented levels. 

During the past half of May, the upper Missouri River Basin received nearly a year’s worth of rainfall. The flooding caused evacuations of thousands of people, swamping river towns and as many 

as 3 million acres of farmland in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas, alone. In May the Army Corps of Engineers blew up a section of the Birds Point Levee in Missouri, submerging about 

130,000 acres of farmland to ease the flood threat to Kentucky and 

Illinois river towns. Damages from these floods are estimated to be 

at $2 billion, thus far. And many of these areas are still in the 

process of drying out. 

In St. Genevieve County, the oldest continuously operated ferry 

based on the Mississippi River established in 1798, essential to the 

lives of many, has been out of operation. Southern Jefferson County construction projects delayed. From Joplin to Tuscaloosa, our 

Nation has experienced its share of natural disasters in these past 

months. 

While we can’t predict a tornado, we can predict floods. We need 

to reach out to local officials to offer help where we can, both in 

relief efforts but also future preventative measures. 

Because of time, I am going to submit the rest of my testimony 

for the record. I look forward to hearing the panel and the experts 

that have assembled here today to be sure we are prepared, that 

we plan properly, and that we revisit our planning, based on these 

recent events, to be sure that we can minimize this kind of devastation again. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack, you have an opening statement? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Chairman, but I will pass and look 

forward to the testimony of my colleagues and the visitors today. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Boswell? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you very much. And I would like to 

make a statement for the record, if I could. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you so much. Well, first I want to thank 

you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, and today Mr. 

Carnahan, for holding this important hearing. As a Member of 

Congress representing a State bordering the Missouri River, I can 

attest to the validity of this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, from time to time I believe circumstances require 

us all to re-evaluate plans and concepts that we thought were sufficient to deal with certain events. I believe sometimes circumstances 

require us to re-evaluate priorities to deal with changing realities. 

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this; in fact, I believe 

it should be encouraged. 

However, it does seem that, on occasion, Government gets in the 

way of this acknowledgment. And when it does, the machinery of 

Government often times does not have the flexibility to change and 

26 

adapt in a timely manner. This does not always happen. Yet, when 

it does, it can bring long-lasting impacts on affected communities. 

The size and scope of the Missouri River flooding that we witnessed this year, I believe, is an event that requires us to re-evaluate our priorities and adapt and alter programs and responses to 

deal with the changing realities. The length of time that we witnessed historic flood waters was something I think no one was really prepared to deal with. 

For example, temporary levees were constructed to protect farmland and communities. According to conversations I have had with 

people in the southwestern part of Iowa, local officials are being 

told to deconstruct those temporary levees. Why? Well, a little investigation. They were required to agree to dismantle as soon as 

the water receded, or they wouldn’t get the temporary levee. And 

flood water was on the way. 

According to that, we do not yet know—again, we do not yet 

know—what type of winter we are going to witness now, and what 

type of runoff we are going to have in the spring, as a result. So 

why must we spend money to deconstruct something that is doing 

nothing but protecting communities when we do not know yet 

whether or not we are going to have to spend money on rebuilding 

it in a few months? Or next spring? 

Is the answer because it is not in a master plan, that recent 

events are proven to be outdated? That simply makes no sense to 

me. But it is those types of actions that drive up costs and, frankly, 

drives up the blood pressure of local citizens who have to deal with 

these changing realities. 

Furthermore, the scope of flooding events across the country 

should call into question spending priorities on how we can better 

focus national resources when it comes to flood protection, conservation, recreation, and so on. Personally, I do believe in conservation. However, we must not sacrifice flood protection and the 

protection of lives and property for the sake of conservation. If we 

do, there will simply be nothing left to conserve, as the flood waters 

wash away natural habitats and communities in their path. 

If there should be tough budgetary decision—and at this time I 

believe we all agree that there must be—then we must prioritize 

flood protection and mitigation above others. However, over the 

last decade or so funding levels of flood protection in the Missouri 

River States have steadily declined, where funding levels for environmental works have steadily increased. This is not to say that 

there is not a time and place for environmental work, for there are. 

But we, our leaders, simply—we, as leaders, simply cannot sacrifice 

entire communities by continually short-changing flood protection. 

So it is my sincere hope that this hearing will provide the committee with the information needed to make an informed decision 

on how best to move forward. And once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for calling this hearing to order. Appreciate your effort. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. We have two more opening statements. Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is 

a very important hearing. The river covers 2,600 miles. Certainly 

27 

it is not—I am not as directly affected as most of the Members 

here, but I am concerned about this. 

I am particularly concerned about the testimony of two later witnesses, Tom Waters of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District 

Association, who has a section of his testimony entitled, ‘‘The Corps 

is Not Listening,’’ and the testimony—a similar testimony from another witness, Brad Lawrence, the public works director of Fort 

Pierre, South Dakota, in which they basically describe either an arrogant or a don’t-care attitude by the Army Corps that they are 

going to do whatever they want to do, regardless of how the people 

feel. 

And then I also noted the testimony of Kathy Kunkel, the county 

clerk of Holt County, Missouri, and she talks about the fish and 

wildlife service dictatorially demanding that 160,000 acres in her 

county be purchased. This—of course we have already heard they 

were talking about maybe millions of acres that needed to be purchased throughout these different States. 

The Federal Government already owns far too much land already, about 30 percent of the land of this country. And State and 

local governments own another 20 percent. And at the same time 

that the police and fire and teachers and everybody keeps coming 

to local and State governments and the Federal Government wanting more money, Government at all levels keeps taking more and 

more land off the tax rolls. Those things just are in conflict. And 

the sooner we realize that private property is not only a very important part of our freedom, but a vital part of our prosperity, the 

better off this country is going to be. 

And then we get into the endangered species part about the sturgeon. And some of this flooding may have been caused by the Federal Government in the first place, trying to protect the sturgeon. 

And I remember years ago in my home area of east Tennessee, 

we got into a battle for years over the snail darter. And the experts 

all told us that the snail darter—that that was the only place 

where you could find snail darters. And then, after we go through 

hundreds of millions of dollars and cases going all the way to the 

U.S. Supreme Court, and then the Congress overruling the fish and 

wildlife service and the Federal bureaucrats, they then—surprise, 

surprise—find that there are snail darters all over the place, Oregon and everyplace else. 

So, this is a very important hearing. I am sorry that I won’t be 

able to stay for a lot of it. But I appreciate your calling this hearing, and thank you for letting me say a few words at this time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Graves? 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member, 

for holding this obviously very important hearing. 

Flooding on the Missouri River has become such a regular occurrence, it is really kind of hard to keep up with. But this year, 2011, 

was actually one for the record books. You know, we don’t know 

what the full cost of this is going to end up being, but it is probably 

going to be several billion dollars. And that includes agriculture 

losses, it includes business interruption, infrastructure damage, individual and public assistance. And, tragically, we did have the loss 

of life as a result of this. 

28 

In northwest Missouri, there are thousands of acres of farmland 

that are utterly devastated. And many of those acres are never 

going to see a crop again. Road closures have cost businesses revenue. That includes gas stations, restaurants, and retailers. And 

ultimately, it cost local jurisdictions a lot of revenue. States, counties, cities, and a lot of other local entities are going to continue 

to have to spend money they simply don’t have for critical infrastructure repairs. 

The BNSF Railroad, which is a major economic generator in the 

Midwest and nationwide has spent literally hundreds of millions of 

dollars as a result of this year’s flood. And when you include rerouting trains, delays, increased fuel and labor, the dollar amount 

continues to go up. The domino effect on small businesses that depend on the timely delivery of goods is enormous, and yet another 

headache they have to deal with during this time of economic uncertainty. 

It is very important that we hear from our witnesses today about 

what the devastation of this flood has caused. But it is just as important to hear what we think the future needs to be when it 

comes to managing the river. And I believe, personally, that we are 

asking the Corps of Engineers to juggle too many priorities. And 

I think we have to make clear, once and for all, that prevention of 

flooding has to be the number one priority. And we also need to 

strip away a lot of other less important priorities. 

I have introduced legislation that would make flood control the 

priority of the Corps in managing the river, and remove fish and 

wildlife as an authorized purpose. We have to get our spending in 

order. From Gavins Point Dam to the mouth of the Missouri River, 

we are slated to spend $73 million on wildlife reclamation and 

habitat creation, and we are only slated to spend $6 million on 

levee maintenance in that same stretch of river. I pointed this out 

on the floor of the House earlier this year. That is 12 times more 

money on birds and fish than it is on levee maintenance. 

My colleague from Iowa, Congressman Steve King, has also introduced legislation that will require the Corps to take into consideration the new data points established by this year’s flood. And I 

doubt anyone contends these actions alone would obviously entirely 

mitigate the possibility of future flooding, but I strongly believe it 

is a huge step in the right direction. 

And the fact of the matter is when you have years like we have 

had this year, with record snow melt, there should be some adjustments made for the consideration of people’s lives. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the opportunity 

to be here, and I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses 

on their testimony. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Today we have two panels. Our first panel is 

Members of Congress, and our second panel is the Corps and some 

other stakeholder people involved in this policy of how we regulate 

the Missouri River. 

But first of all, our first panelists, we are doing this by the order 

you came in, so we are trying to be fair. And the plan is not to ask 

Members of Congress questions, so we can get on to the second 

panel. So this will be just making your testimony. 

And, as the first Member, I welcome Mr. Latham. 

29 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM LATHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA; HON. RICK BERG, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NORTH DAKOTA; HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA; HON. LYNN JENKINS, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

KANSAS; HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI; HON. KRISTI L. 

NOEM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF SOUTH DAKOTA; HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI; HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI; HON. JEFF 

FORTENBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; AND HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of 

the subcommittee for having this hearing. I’d like to ask unanimous consent to have placed in record comments of General Derek 

Hill, the chairman of Governor Branstad’s Iowa Missouri River Recovery Coordination Task Force. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

30 


Insert offset folio 33 here 71415.033
31 


Insert offset folio 34 here 71415.034
32 


Insert offset folio 35 here 71415.035
33 


Insert offset folio 36 here 71415.036
34 


Insert offset folio 37 here 71415.037
35 


Insert offset folio 38 here 71415.038
36 


Insert offset folio 39 here 71415.039
37 


Insert offset folio 40 here 71415.040
38 


Insert offset folio 41 here 71415.041
39 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. Just a couple points. I have got an appropriations meeting going on right now, for which—I am going to 

have to leave, but I think it is important to note that, even with 

all the devastation brought by this flood, to the citizens, the towns, 

the communities, farms and businesses, and all the attendant economic costs, we still don’t know the full extent of damage, because 

there are areas we still can’t get in to evaluate. 

As is the case with other States, the two major priorities in Iowa 

are the restoration of flood control facilities and increased 

prioritization of flood control and the management of the Missouri 

River. In short, the residents must be protected, which means we 

have to focus on repairing the flood control infrastructure like levees, and getting those levees back to pre-disaster conditions. 

The levee damage is not just from the breaches. The entire levee 

infrastructure is weakened and eroded. And the state of affairs— 

this must be addressed now, before spring. 

As to the river management, the Corps has made some encouraging comments about flexibility. But I think we need more than 

promising comments about the management of the river flow. We 

need to take active steps ahead of the next flood season. 

Just one more point on the Iowa transportation roadways. Close 

to 250 miles of roads were impacted. In my State, the Iowa DOT 

staff has done an absolutely great job. There is still an awful lot 

more work to be done. But I think it is important for this committee, Transportation and Infrastructure, to look at the highway 

emergency repair funding regime, as our experience in Iowa suggests that some changes really need to be made to the statute. 

With that, I appreciate being here very much. I will have a more 

extensive statement for the record. But thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Berg from North Dakota. 

Mr. BERG. Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Carnahan and 

the rest of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing us 

to speak today regarding the management of the Missouri River, 

and also the operational plans for the future. 

Today’s hearing is focused on the 2011 flood events along the 

Missouri River. As you know, North Dakota was devastated by this 

year’s unprecedented flooding throughout the State. The damage is 

significant, with thousands of homes damaged, tens of thousands 

of North Dakotans displaced, hundreds of thousands of acres of 

farmland flooded, and severe damage to infrastructure. 

I firmly believe that flooding along the Missouri River was both 

natural and manmade. North Dakotans are frustrated with the experience they had this past year, and rightly concerned about the 

potential for 2012 flooding. Many questions still need to be answered regarding what went wrong and what actions should be 

taken to prevent a similar flood in the future. 

Specifically, questions have been raised about the management 

of the reservoir system by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We 

need to know more about the information that the Corps used in 

its decisionmaking process. It has been noted by the subcommittee 

inundation maps used by the Corps and other Federal agencies 

40 

were inadequate and non-existent. In some cases, the only tools 

available were 100-year flood plain maps. Many were inaccurate. 

Further, the Corps needs to better explain the timing of the decisions, and why they were made when they were made. Those decisions led to tremendous devastation. And the residents of all our 

States deserve answers. 

I look forward to hearing from those responsible, and what the 

plan is to ensure that similar flooding does not occur in the future. 

Regardless, we can’t look ahead to a long-term management solution while we are still fighting flooding next year. I have and will 

continue to urge the Corps to first focus on the immediate planning 

for the 2012 flood season before implementing a long-term strategy. 

Specifically, the Corps needs to address what actions are prudent 

for them to take next year to prevent a repeat of the disaster for 

2012. 

I fear the Corps has been operating under an assumption that 

this year’s flood was a singular historic event. I think this is naive 

and short-sighted. Currently the National Weather Service is forecasting a La Nina climate pattern for this winter, with long-term 

outlooks predicting a fourth consecutive year with in-flows above 

normal into the Missouri River system. The Corps must take into 

account both current wet conditions in the upper basin and forecasts in their operating plan and management decisions. 

Recently, Governor Dalrymple and the North Dakota State 

Water Commission asked the Corps to lower Lake Sakakawea, our 

major reservoir, by 21⁄2 feet to provide more storage capacity and 

additional flood protection for this upcoming spring. The Corps dismissed this request, a decision I strongly opposed. I am cautiously 

optimistic about the Corps’ recent announcement that they will 

take a more flexible approach to managing the river system, and 

will be more aggressive in managing water releases during the 

winter and spring. And I appreciate the Corps’ stated commitment 

to provide more frequent communications with the State, local, and 

county officials. 

But as we await this final version of the Corps’ annual operating 

plan this December, I believe it is in the best interest of the Corps 

to support a cautionary approach to the management of the Missouri River system. Going forward, the Corps must consider flood 

protection above all else in managing the Missouri River system. 

We are aware of the congressionally authorized purposes associated 

with the Missouri River system, purposes such as recreation, hydropower, irrigation, fishing, wildlife, water supply, and water 

quality. All remain important. However, all of those purposes are 

secondary to the need for dependable flood control. 

The clear consensus from seven out of eight States that were affected by the 2011 flooding event is that flood control must be the 

highest priority. I will continue to pressure the Corps to make flood 

protection the top priority in managing the river system. I will demand greater transparency in forecasting, and more meaningful 

public meetings regarding its management. 

I would ask to submit my entire statement for the record, and 

I would like to submit a more detailed article about the infrastructure damage experienced by the BNSF Railway. And also, I would 

41 

ask that testimony by our Governor, Jack Dalrymple, on November 

1st also be submitted for the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[Hon. Rick Berg’s statement is featured with the other witnesses’ 

statements—please refer to the ‘‘Prepared Statements Submitted 

by Witnesses’’ section of the table of contents. The other information follows:] 

42 


Insert offset folio 42 here 71415.042
43 


Insert offset folio 43 here 71415.043
44 


Insert offset folio 44 here 71415.044
45 


Insert offset folio 45 here 71415.045
46 


Insert offset folio 46 here 71415.046
47 


Insert offset folio 47 here 71415.047
48 


Insert offset folio 48 here 71415.048
49 


Insert offset folio 49 here 71415.049
50 

Mr. BERG. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member and 

committee for granting our request for this hearing, and assisting 

our bipartisan effort to gain answers from the Corps and work towards long-term flood protection. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, that is so ordered, the record, your testimony 

written and the Governor’s testimony. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. King from Iowa. Welcome. 

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

Carnahan. I appreciate this hearing today, and I appreciate the 

testimony of the other Members so far. And I completely agree with 

what I heard the gentleman from North Dakota testify just ahead 

of us, and along with the rest of the testimony that I have heard. 

I certainly support Congressman Graves’s bill that sets some priorities. And I have introduced a piece of legislation, H.R. 2942, that 

does not change the order of those priorities but does require the 

Corps of Engineers to recalculate the storage space to protect us 

from serious downstream flooding. 

And I will just touch some of the bases along the way on the 

scope of this damage. Your opening statement covered most of it, 

Mr. Chairman. And it is this, that the greatest amount of runoff 

we had ever experienced, in nearly 61 million acre feet, the discharge at Gavins Point Dam is a key component of this. That is the 

last valve going into the Missouri River out of the six dams. 

The highest discharge we had ever experienced in the past was 

70,000 cubic feet per second. We found by midsummer—or I will 

say by June, about June 14th or 15th—it was kicked up to 160,000, 

more than twice as much discharge as we had ever seen. That 

brought about water in the Missouri River bottom that, by the time 

you get to Sioux City, it is—they had—they saw flooding in Sioux 

City, just downstream from Sioux City—the river was typically 

about 11⁄2 miles wide, and that is narrow. A few miles south of 

there, at Blencoe, 8 miles wide. By the time you got to I–680 north 

of Omaha, where I cut across the river to go to the airport from 

the Iowa side, the water was 11 miles wide. 

And it came back together through the levees and through 

Omaha and Council Bluffs, where we had 30,000 people in Council 

Bluffs living below the water line in the river for 31⁄2 or 4 months, 

while the water table was at the level it was. And only the levee 

protected them from becoming another New Orleans, and it had 

some leaks and some seepages. But downstream from there in 

Glenwood and south, then the river became 4, 5, and 6 miles wide 

on down into Missouri, on through Sam Graves’s district. 

That water wasn’t just standing there, as people envision, a normal flood. This water was running 10 to 11 miles an hour in the 

channel and where it was spread out 11 miles wide it was still 4 

to 5 miles an hour, out against the base of the hills. And so what 

you saw was hundreds of thousands of acres covered by sand that 

now today, when the water has gone down, it looks like Iraq. 

And the loss in crop damage that—just a back of the envelope 

calculation—that we lost in Iowa and Missouri, not counting Nebraska and Kansas and the Dakotas, but just Iowa and Missouri, 

the equivalent feed value lost is more than half of the wheat crop 

51 

in Montana, for example. I use Montana, because we would like to 

have them join all the other States affected in wanting to control 

this discharge to prevent serious downstream flooding. 

The Corps of Engineers, in response to much of our pressure that 

has come, has said initially, ‘‘Well, this is—we are not going to 

change the management of the river. We think this is a 500-year 

event.’’ I want to emphasize that we have a 150 years of records, 

and they are declaring a 500-year event. If you had 10,000 years 

of records and it happened a couple of times a millennia, you might 

be able to say this is a 500-year event. No mortal can tell you it 

is a 500-year event. Lord knows why I have had to live through so 

many 500-year weather events in my short time here on this earth. 

And so that is, I think, an arrogant position on the part of the 

Corps. And to declare that they are going to manage this river— 

the first slide that they put up is ‘‘Congressionally Authorized.’’ 

And then they decide that they are going to manage the river without the direction of Congress. 

I think we have to tell them—even though they have changed 

their position now to a third position—first one was, ‘‘We are not 

going to change the management because it is a 500-year event;’’ 

second one is, ‘‘Well, we might because we have heard enough from 

you that we want to at least pacify those objectors that are there;’’ 

third one is, ‘‘Now we think we will lower the levels a little more 

next year,’’ but they don’t want to do something permanent. We 

have to tell them. If we don’t tell them, they will slide back to 

being run by the environmental interests, as opposed to the first 

priority, which I have heard stated multiple times here: Protect us 

from the flooding from serious downstream. 

And additionally to that—and my bill, H.R. 2942 has the support 

of most of the Members—it is bipartisan—most of the Members affected by this. And I would think the others may want to take a 

good look at it again. But it is a very simple bill that does two 

things. It tells the Corps of Engineers that, ‘‘You shall recalculate 

your storage space to protect us from the greatest runoff ever.’’ 

That is now 2011 instead of 1881. 

I would pose that if we had the runoff in 1881 that we had in 

2011, they would have built a Pick-Sloan program to protect us, 

and we wouldn’t have had this event here in this year, because it 

would have been—the storage would have protected us from it. 

So, that is the first thing it tells it to do. And then it says, ‘‘You 

shall reach those targets by March 1st,’’ which is something that 

is part of their language. 

So, then, one more closing point here—and I know that my time 

has run out—we also have levees that they are not reconstructing 

back to pre-flood elevations. And that means that in my district— 

in Sam Graves’s district, in particular—they are repairing some of 

these blown-out levees with sand to the 25-year event, which 

means that for the last 5 years it would flood anyway. Our people 

in the river bottom then have to pay triple crop insurance, they 

can’t rebuild, they can’t plant anything, and the budgets that they 

could do interdepartmental transfers on, looking at 2002 by Corps’ 

numbers, 13 percent of their budget was flood control, 13 percent 

was environmental. 2012 they have 0 percent flood control, 52 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:43 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-30-~1\71415.TXT JEAN
52 

cent for environmental. I suggest that no environmental money 

gets spent until the levees are repaired to pre-flood elevations. 

I would conclude that testimony, and thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Ms. Jenkins from Kansas. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member 

Carnahan for giving us this opportunity to testify on this very important matter today. Due to incredibly heavy snow runoff and 

spring rainfall, the reservoirs on the upper Missouri River Basin 

were filled beyond specified capacity this spring. As a result, on 

June 23rd, the United States Army Corps of Engineers directed the 

release of water at a record level of 160,000 cubic feet per second 

from the Gavins Point Dam on the upper Missouri River. This decision by the Corps more than doubled the previous record release 

of water from Gavins Point and put communities, homeowners, 

farmers, and critical road and rail transportation routes in Atchison, Doniphan, and Leavenworth Counties in my congressional 

district in the path of the raging Missouri River. 

After touring affected communities, I am convinced that the 

Corps’ management plan can and must be improved to ensure that 

everything possible is done to prevent flooding of this magnitude in 

the future. For this reason, Senator Roberts and I have introduced 

bills in the House and the Senate that will require the Secretary 

of the Army, acting through the chief of engineers, to take into account all hydrologic data from the events leading up to this year’s 

flooding in conducting Missouri River Basin operations in the future. 

Such data would include rainfall, as well as snowpack from the 

mountains and the plains, and must be included in all plans involving the management of the Missouri River. This data should help 

limit the risk of future record flood events, and will allow the Corps 

to ensure that flood mitigation on the Missouri River is the top priority, without directly jeopardizing the river’s other functions, such 

as navigation, recreation, or water and energy supply. 

In addition, it will ensure that vital lines of commerce along the 

river, including railroads which sustained hundreds of millions of 

dollars of damage during this flood season will not be interrupted 

by a similar disaster. 

I am hopeful that this hearing will help convince the Army Corps 

of Engineers to consider the lessons of this summer and take the 

necessary measures to prevent these types of floods from happening in the future. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having us. And I would ask 

that my testimony be included in the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri, welcome. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. Thank you, Ranking Member Carnahan, my other 

Missouri colleagues, for your leadership on this issue, as well. 

There is about 180 miles of the Missouri River that flows 

through the Fourth District of Missouri, which I represent. This 

stretch of river is lined by about 35 levees designed to protect some 

of the best farmland this country has to offer from being ruined by 

raging floods. This spring and summer every one of these levees 

53 

was under constant assault by hundreds of millions of gallons of 

flood water. Farmers scratched out schedules with their neighbors 

so that they could hold constant vigil 24 hours a day for months 

on end. 

Now, think about that. During the watches of the night they 

were on their cell phones, stationed at different places along the 

levee for months. They gave time away from their families and 

their businesses to hold vigil over these levees. They were watching 

for breaks, seepage, sand boils, acting quickly to shore them up, if 

needed. 

Even though almost every one of our levees became saturated 

and sustained significant damage, they performed remarkably well, 

as a whole, with only enough overtoppings or failures to count on 

one hand. But our farmers lost crops due to backed up rainwater 

that could not flow out to the river. The Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri, also known as 

FAPRI, estimates that at least 28,000 acres of farmland was flooded in my district due to that backwater, destroying over $23.8 million worth of crops in my district. 

Now our levees are in desperate need of repairs before next 

spring’s flood season. Time is of the essence. The months of complete saturation of the levees and high waters have left their toll. 

The levees are weakened and in need of repair now. Red tape 

needs to be cut and contracts for repair need to be let now. It is 

3 months as of tomorrow before the beginning of March and the 

rain season again. We need to have these levees repaired. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency stated earlier this 

month that there is a high probability of flooding in the Missouri 

River Basin in 2012. Congress and the Corps of Engineers must 

make the repair a priority to avoid a similar situation occurring 

next year, or we could be here again. 

Many residents feel that these floods could have been reduced, 

if not completely avoided, by earlier action and better prioritization 

of uses by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I look forward to hearing the other testimony today and receiving 

the Corps’ reports on its actions. And my fellow Members and I will 

continue to press them to make flood control the number one priority of the river system at all times. 

I want to echo the comments of my fellow colleagues here and 

urge them to take into account: one, last year’s runoff; two, increased capacity of the reservoir for flood control; and three, act 

sooner in the event of significant snowfall/rainfall this winter. 

Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate your invitation to introduce one 

of my constituents who will be testifying before you here on today’s 

panel. 

Tom Waters is a seventh generation Missouri farmer who lives 

near Orrick, Missouri, in the Missouri River flood plain, where he 

produces corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa. Tom serves as chairman of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association, 

where he represents not only the levee and drainage districts, but 

also the businesses and others interested in the activities surrounding the Missouri River and its tributaries. In addition to 

holding several other public offices, he serves as president on three 

54 

local levee and drainage district boards, which, combined, represent 

over 21,000 acres of Missouri River bottom land. 

He is an articulate spokesperson for the farmers of the Heartland. So please consider what he has to say. Ask him questions. 

Because he truly is an expert on this issue. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy and for 

your interest in this vitally important topic. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mrs. Noem from South Dakota, welcome. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing today. And thank you, Representative Carnahan, as 

well, for being here and bringing attention to the Missouri River 

system, which experienced devastating flooding this year. Hundreds of homes in South Dakota were damaged and destroyed. 

Businesses were disrupted. Many were displaced for months. 

This was not like most natural disasters. This flood lasted for 

over 90 days. It began in late May and it ended in late September. 

The situation began in February as runoff levels into the system 

from snowpack in the mountains and northern plains began to far 

exceed normal amounts. As flood storage within the system depleted throughout the spring, releases across the system were not 

increased to adequately compensate for the risk of future runoffs 

and rains. 

Then came May. With flood storage depleted, torrential rains fell 

in Montana. On May 23rd, the Corps announced that it was increasing releases to 70,000 cubic feet per second from the Oahe 

Dam near Pierre, South Dakota. This was 11,000 cfs over the previous record. Residents and communities along the river began to 

sandbag, constructing berms. Yet 5 days later it was announced 

that the five lower dams would reach 150,000 cfs, nearly double 

what the Corps had announced just days earlier. Releases finally 

peaked at around 160 cfs for the four dams in South Dakota. The 

result was a slow-moving disaster of epic proportions. 

I believe, as others have stated, that this flood was part natural 

disaster and part manmade disaster. Certainly we cannot discount 

that some amount of human error did occur. The Corps has repeatedly reiterated that it operated in accordance with the master manual, and that rain in May was a significant contributing factor in 

the flooding. However, this reasoning does not account for the runoff that occurred from February to April. 

While it is likely that some amount of flooding could not have 

been avoided, given the runoff and the rain flowing into the system, surely something could have been done differently that would 

have avoided releases that were double and nearly triple previous 

records. 

From all the information that I have seen, I believe the Corps 

of Engineers carries some responsibility for this disaster. That level 

of responsibility should be explored during this hearing. 

Another area where I disagree with the Corps is on timely notification of residents about the possibility of flooding. This is what I 

hear the most from people back in South Dakota. Many of those 

along the river can prepare for higher than normal releases, if 

given reasonable advanced notice and adequate information. In 

55 

fact, that happened in 1997, when we faced historic levels. This 

year they were afforded neither. 

I hope the Corps is committed to more effective notification about 

runoff, releases, and the risk of flooding in the future. And as we 

try to rebuild and put this behind us, there are many lingering 

questions. The biggest one is: Could this ever happen again? And 

this is of particular concern because the National Weather Service 

forecasts indicate that we are continuing in a wet cycle with significant precipitation and snowpack predicted for 2012. 

We should have learned something from this year’s experience to 

better plan for future wet cycles. The Corps needs flexible management of the river to account for these trends, and still allow for the 

proper balance between the authorized purposes of the system, 

with the number one priority being flood control. 

Witnessing this disaster and reviewing the management plan 

going forward have left me with a lot of questions. The first one 

is: On November 4th the Corps indicated it would change its approach to the 2012 annual operating plan as a result of public forums. What does it intend to change? And how is it going to take 

a ‘‘more aggressive stance,’’ as it said? 

What is the Corps doing to promote a more dynamic, real-time 

decisionmaking in the future, including modifying their forecasting 

and hydrologic models, and incorporating all of the available data? 

Number three, the Corps has both internal and external review 

panels going on right now. They should be completed by the end 

of the year. What is the process for modifying their management 

practices, based on the finding of these panels? 

Number four, does the Corps have the flexibility within the manual to more adequately deal with future wet cycles and the type of 

conditions we experienced this year? The Corps has cost estimates 

for repairs to the system—finally—caused by the damage this year. 

But do they have estimates for the total economic cost of the flooding this year? 

This flood event and future management questions regarding the 

Missouri River system are why this hearing is so critically important. I look forward to the testimony of the other witnesses. 

And I have my own written statement, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to submit for the record. And I also would like to ask that 

statements provided by Laurie Gill, the mayor of Pierre, Jeff 

Dooley, manager of the Dakota Dunes Community Improvement 

District, and Kim Blaeser, a home owner and treasurer of the Rivr-Land Homeowners Association, also be included into the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[Hon. Kristi L. Noem’s statement is featured with the other witnesses’ statements—please refer to the ‘‘Prepared Statements Submitted by Witnesses’’ section of the table of contents. The other information follows:] 

56 


Insert offset folio 50 here 71415.050
57 


Insert offset folio 51 here 71415.051
58 


Insert offset folio 52 here 71415.052
59 


Insert offset folio 53 here 71415.053
60 


Insert offset folio 54 here 71415.054
61 


Insert offset folio 55 here 71415.055
62 


Insert offset folio 56 here 71415.056
63 


Insert offset folio 57 here 71415.057
64 


Insert offset folio 58 here 71415.058
65 


Insert offset folio 59 here 71415.059
66 


Insert offset folio 60 here 71415.060
67 


Insert offset folio 61 here 71415.061
68 

Mrs. NOEM. I would like to take an opportunity to quickly introduce one of the witnesses that is going to be on the second panel, 

if that would be fine with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Proceed. 

Mrs. NOEM. Brad Lawrence is the director of public works for the 

city of Fort Pierre, one of the communities that was devastated by 

the flooding this year. He has extensive knowledge and experience 

with the river system. He was one of the very first people to sound 

the alarm that flooding was going to happen back in February, long 

before the record rains ever came. 

I am pleased he is here today. I would ask that his full written 

testimony and statement be included in the record, as well. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the committee today, and for holding this hearing. And I certainly yield back any balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Cleaver from Missouri, welcome. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman Gibbs, 

Mr. Carnahan sitting in for Ranking Member Bishop, and members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to provide testimony on the tragedy that occurred in my home State and throughout the Midwest this past summer. 

We need to examine the events and actions that led to this flood 

and ensure that resources are available to assist Federal agencies, 

States, and communities with recovery efforts and preparations for 

2012. We also must re-examine the way we predict and prepare for 

floods. Flood control must be the primary purpose of the Missouri 

River reservoir system. 

Kansas City was extremely fortunate to escape, for the most 

part, the massive devastation that nearby communities upstream 

endured. But it certainly has not escaped in the past, and may not 

in the future. Kansas City is particularly vulnerable to flooding, 

sitting at the convergence of the Kaw, Missouri, and Blue Rivers. 

As mayor of Kansas City in the 1990s, I had to deal with the devastation and aftermath of the great flood of 1993. That year the 

Missouri River crested at a record 48.87 feet. Damage to the city’s 

utilities and public infrastructure reached over $17 million. 

Currently, eight Federal levees in the metro area—and because 

they are now rickety and worn through the decades—span 60 miles 

and protect $15 billion worth of assets. We have been trying to 

fund and complete projects to improve and repair these levees and 

other flood control projects since I was mayor. 

I would like to highlight a few impacts of this year’s flooding of 

the Missouri River, commonly known as The Big Muddy. By midsummer, all non-Federal levees in Missouri north of Kansas City 

were breached or overtopped, as well as several others downstream. North of the river, the suburbs of Parkville experienced 

flooding, including the English Landing Park. Even, Mr. Chairman, 

areas where levees held, fields experienced damage from seepage 

and sand boils. 

I visited several farms east of Kansas City this summer that had 

private levee seepage in their fields. The Miami Levee District 

Number One in Saline County experienced flooded fields from seep 

water, causing fields to remain unplanted and drowning their 

69 

plants. One private levee in the multi-bin bottoms of Saline County 

was breached in early July. Bottom land farmers in Saline County 

recorded 128 consecutive days with the river above flood level, and 

the river in that area did not go below flood stage until September 

29th. Clay, Jackson, Ray, Lafayette, and Saline Counties experienced a total of over 31,300 crop land acres flooded, and over $26.6 

million in lost market revenue. Fields may take between 3 and 5 

years to come back to full production. And perhaps 10 to 15 percent 

of flooded land will never return to production. 

Kansas City is not, as the Nation knows, a professional football 

powerhouse. However, it is a major warehouse and distribution 

hub, and a leading agro-business center. The metro area has the 

second busiest rail yards in the Nation. And it is first in the Nation, in terms of tonnage. 

Interstate 29 is a major travel and shipping corridor northward 

from the city. The prolonged closure of I–29 and resulting damage 

to the city’s commerce was particularly injurious for a city founded 

by traders in the late 1700s. 

Great Plains Energy, the parent company of our local utility, 

KCP&L, reported a 4-percent drop in third-quarter earnings, particularly and partially due to expenses from the flooding. The 

placement of several power plants near the river required KCP&L 

to sandbag, build concrete walls, and other physical preparations 

to protect the plant, purchase additional power in case the facilities 

had to shut down, and conserve coal while the railroad service to 

plants was closed. 

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, this photograph is of the plant 

in June, the end of June. And the next photograph is a few days 

later, July 8th. Almost everything around it under water. BNSF 

Railroad had about one-third of their 1,500 trains on the network 

rerouted daily during the height of the flood. 

Congress and the Corps must learn from this tragedy and modify 

flood control policies to decrease the likelihood of such an event 

happening again. We also need to understand why increased releases from upstream reservoirs were not occurring earlier in the 

spring. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can 

predict patterns such as La Nina seasons, and provide monthly 

precipitation forecasts. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a very serious problem. It is not going 

to go away without congressional involvement. It is my hope that, 

with the Missouri delegation across political lines are coming together saying we need to act, I think most of us support our colleague, Mr. Graves’s, legislation, and it is my hope that we can 

move quickly to get this completed. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Luetkemeyer from Missouri, welcome. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank Ranking Member Carnahan as well, for holding what I believe is an extremely important hearing. 

There are thousands of people living and working along the 140 

miles of the Missouri River that run through my district. It is essential that they have the support needed to protect their lives, 

businesses, and property from flooding. These people, along with 

millions living throughout the lower Mississippi River Basin, deVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:43 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-30-~1\71415.TXT JEAN
70 

pend on the steady flow of the Missouri for their power generation, 

navigation needs, and ability to move goods to both domestic and 

international market places. 

This summer a high Missouri River and full reservoirs served as 

a prescription for disaster, resulting in a devastating flood that impacted hundreds of families and businesses that call the banks of 

the river home. 

In January, snowpack in the upper basin was 141 percent of normal, and forecasts of the NOAA predicted that runoff this spring 

would be historically high, and it wound up being even higher than 

the forecasts. Releases from Gavins Point Dam were pushed to 

160,000 cubic feet per second, more than double all previous releases, as has been detailed here already this morning. 

Ultimately, hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland were 

flooded. Some farms were under water for more than 15 weeks, resulting in complete loss of crops for many. 

According to a recent study conducted by the University of Missouri, more than 207,000 acres of crop land were destroyed in 24 

Missouri counties alone, resulting in nearly $176 million in lost 

revenue. This translates into a total economic loss in the region of 

more than $326 million. 

To address this levee damage the Corps says they won’t have the 

funding necessary to rebuild the levees to pre-flood levels. However, one can’t help but take notice of the significant disparity of 

funding for habitat restoration and land acquisition, and then the 

funding dedicated to operations and maintenance. Mr. Graves has 

a bill that points this out and addresses this issue. 

There is a tremendous emphasis right now that has been placed 

on habitat restoration and compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act instead of the protection of life and property. We think this 

needs to be re-prioritized. It is obvious the Corps is juggling too 

many competing interests. And again, Mr. King has a bill also that 

addresses this issue. 

While the upper and lower basins have historically had different 

management philosophies, I believe it is time to work together to 

ensure that the best policies affecting the Missouri River are put 

in place. After this year’s event, it is obvious that planning must 

change, and management must change, to ensure this event is not 

allowed to happen again. 

Flood control must be the Corps’ primary objective in managing 

the river. And levee repair and reconstruction must be a priority. 

I urge the committee’s consideration of these and all the other 

Members that are here today, their comments, and to take action. 

Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska, welcome. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this important hearing to examine the impacts of this Missouri flood, and the strategies for potential management reforms 

that will help mitigate the consequences of such flooding in the future. We really appreciate your time. 

This summer, as Congressman King so vividly articulated, I saw 

for myself the devastation caused by the flooding along the MisVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:43 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-30-~1\71415.TXT JEAN
71 

souri. In Nebraska, communities from Blair to Brownville, I witnessed the hardships imposed upon families, individuals, communities, farmers. 

I saw the efforts of volunteers and city crews armed with sand 

bags, working day and night to protect home, businesses, parks, 

and city infrastructure. I saw the successful measures taken at our 

two nuclear energy power facilities in Brownville and Fort Calhoun, to ensure the flood waters posed no further threat to public 

safety. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it was a bit surreal to see a boat 

tied to a nuclear power plant. 

Nebraska, like other States along the Missouri River Basin, was 

hit very hard. Families’ lives were turned upside down. Some Nebraskans lost their homes. Others lost farms and businesses. A recent analysis commissioned by the Nebraska Farm Bureau estimated the total impacts of the flood related to Nebraska agriculture is set at about $190 million. According to the Nebraska 

Emergency Management Agency, public assistance estimates for 

damage from the flooding are in excess of $150 million. Individual 

assistance has exceeded $3.7 million, and small business assistance 

is more than $3.6 million. Overall projection of damages along the 

Missouri River totaled more than $2 billion, as we have heard. 

I know that many employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked very hard during the period of the flooding to keep 

citizens informed of water levels and threats to public safety, while 

providing direct and technical assistance. They also remained accessible through various avenues of contact with the public and 

through Government agencies. 

During and after the flooding events, though, many of my constituents questioned river management decisions made by the 

Corps, and these decisions’ impacts on the severity of the flooding. 

While it is clear that certain areas affecting the Missouri River experienced record amounts of snowmelt and precipitation this year, 

creating record levels of runoff, it is necessary that we thoroughly 

examine how existing river management policies have played a role 

in the flooding and its dramatic impacts. 

We must also take this opportunity to consider new strategies for 

flood control, moving forward. The 2011 flood and its extraordinary 

consequences necessitate a re-evaluation of river management. 

To this end I have joined several of my colleagues here, the Missouri River Basin Members of Congress, in supporting legislative 

efforts to compel a reassessment of upstream management for the 

purpose of preventing catastrophic flooding events that negatively 

impact all Missouri River users. 

One of these proposals by Mr. King, H.R. 2942, would direct the 

chief of the Army Corps of Engineers to revise the Missouri River 

mainstream reservoir system master water control manual to ensure greater storage capacity to prevent serious downstream flooding. Upstream reservoirs would be required to remain low enough 

to accommodate high levels of runoff and prevent devastating 

downstream flooding. 

On a related matter, earlier this month I introduced H.R. 3347 

to exempt any road, highway, or bridge damaged by a natural disaster, including a flood, from duplicative environmental document 

72 

reviews if the road, highway, or bridge is reconstructed in the same 

location. 

We must do all that is possible to help prevent another tragedy. 

For the sake of public safety, a reassessment of the Corps’ Missouri 

River policies is in order. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing will be a constructive first step 

in this regard. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Terry from Nebraska, welcome. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your 

flexibility in allowing me to come in at the last moment. 

Mr. GIBBS. You made it just in time. 

Mr. TERRY. We have a markup on farm dust bill occurring and 

we just broke, so I was able to come over here. But I think it is 

interesting that while we are dealing with protecting farmers from 

EPA and dust, any potential dust protection regulations, that many 

of our farmers were under water this entire summer. And now, 

since the river has receded to almost normal level, what is left is 

sand and debris, making farmland unusable for years to come. So, 

the water has receded, but the issues affecting our farmland and 

bottom lands have not. 

My constituents, as Jeff Fortenberry’s constituents, are worried 

already about next year. And that is why a bill like Steve King’s 

bill is important to discuss, and the role of the Corps of Engineers, 

going forward. My constituents and I—and discussions with many 

of our political leaders throughout the State—firmly believe that 

the Corps of Engineers must return to their basic principles and 

purpose of the dam system along the Missouri River, which is flood 

control. 

In my discussions with the Corps of Engineers, they have informed me that they have six, seven, eight different criteria that 

are their priorities. I am sorry, but you can’t have eight different 

items, many of which are in conflict with each other, as your priorities. Pick one, and then try to work the others in where they may. 

But having pallid sturgeon and piping plovers as the priority one 

year, and flooding the next, doesn’t work. 

So, therefore, I would encourage this committee to look forward 

at creating a priority for the Corps of Engineers, and making that 

priority flood control—which, again, the whole purpose of the dam 

system was flood control. Let’s get back to the Corps’ roots and initial purposes here, and control the floods. Let’s make sure what 

happened this year, will not happen next year. 

And I have submitted—and I think it is already in the record— 

my full statement. So I will yield back the rest of my time. And 

thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. That concludes our first panelists’ 

hearing, the Members. And thank you for your input. This is very 

valuable, and you are representing your constituents very well. 

We will give a minute or two here for our second panel to come 

up to the front daises. While the next panel is getting situated, Mr. 

Boswell would like to make another comment. The floor is yours. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I would like to 

just speak from the heart, just for a second, to the committee, to 

73 

you, sir, and the ranking member, and whoever else wants to listen. 

You know, I soldiered for a long time, as many others did. I don’t 

believe for a minute that the Corps of Engineers would deliberately 

do anything to harm anybody. I don’t believe that. I think we go 

through a process, the 14-year plan, which gets vetted through everything we can think of. And then finally, after everybody has 

massaged it, it gets approved. Sometimes referred to as ‘‘The 

Bible,’’ they go out and they try to put it into action. And I have 

learned in my life it is pretty hard to please everybody. 

But I just want to say, from my point, as I look at those at the 

table, and as I meet with people out across the country, I doubt if 

they asked for this job to start with, and we gave it to them, and 

they bring a lot of expertise to the table. They are dedicated men 

and women. And I think it is OK for us to—I want to say this— 

I heard somebody say, ‘‘Investigate, investigate.’’ That is not a good 

word. I think we need to review. 

When I think about all the concrete that has been put down 

across the country and the increased runoff, tiling, and the things 

we do, it changes things. But one thing that the Corps or you or 

I or none of us can do is to predict with great accuracy what Mother Nature is going to do. And the 10-inch rain or the heavy snow 

or the late temperature change and the late runoff and all these 

prior things that have been talked about by the previous panel was 

very good, very real. That is what people are faced with. 

But I think what a proper term is, you know, if we have had two 

500-year floods in the last 10 years, or one, or whatever, it is OK 

to review. And I think that is what you are doing. And I want to 

compliment you for having this hearing and going through this discussion. And if I can participate in any way down the way, I would 

be happy to do that. 

Thank you for what you are doing. This is good. I appreciate it. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. BOSWELL. The panelists are getting ready to appear. Thank 

you for your service to all these things and our country. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Representative. I will just quickly comment on your comments there. 

I think the intent here is to have discussion, open dialogue. And 

hopefully everybody will learn something, and we can make better 

policy. And my guess is one of the Corps’ challenges might be there 

is conflicts in law that is causing problems, because the changes 

happen back in the demographics and dynamics. So that is—I 

think we all got the same goal. We will find that out in a few minutes. 

But before we get to the second panel, Mr. Carnahan has a procedural issue. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, just a—Mr. Chairman, thank you. And just 

wanted to ask unanimous consent to submit a statement for the 

record on behalf of our colleague, Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s statement is featured with the 

other statements from Members of Congress—please refer to the 

74 

‘‘Prepared Statements Submitted by Members of Congress’’ section 

in the table of contents.] 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And also had a letter from the U.S. Department 

of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, which I would just point out 

makes the point in the letter that the—they did not take the Endangered Species Act into account, did not have an affect on operations in—with regard to this flood in 2011. 

I want to submit that for the record and then two others from 

the National Wildlife Federation and the American Society of Civil 

Engineers. We would just ask unanimous consent to submit those 

for the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. So ordered. 

[The written statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers is featured with Hon. Bob Gibbs’s submissions for the record. 

Please refer to the table of contents for Hon. Gibbs’s submissions 

for the record. The other information follows:] 

75 


Insert offset folio 62 here 71415.062
76 


Insert offset folio 63 here 71415.063
77 


Insert offset folio 64 here 71415.064
78 


Insert offset folio 65 here 71415.065
79 


Insert offset folio 66 here 71415.066
80 


Insert offset folio 67 here 71415.067
81 


Insert offset folio 68 here 71415.068
82 


Insert offset folio 69 here 71415.069
83 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. At this time I want to welcome our second panelists. And I will just review quickly. 

We have Brigadier General John McMahon. He is the commander and division engineer of the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, Northwestern Division. 

We have Ms. Kathy Kunkel, who is the county clerk at Holt 

County, Missouri. I can’t see you. That must be you, OK. 

Mr. Tom Waters, chairman of the Missouri Levee and Drainage 

District Association; and Brad Lawrence, director of public works, 

city of Fort Pierre, South Dakota; and Richard Oswald of Langdon, 

Missouri. 

Welcome. And we will start with the general. 

TESTIMONY OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN R. MCMAHON, 

COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, UNITED STATES 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; KATHY J. KUNKEL, COUNTY 

CLERK, HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI; TOM WATERS, CHAIRMAN, 

MISSOURI LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION; 

BRAD LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF 

FORT PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA; AND RICHARD OSWALD, 

FIFTH-GENERATION MISSOURI FAMILY FARMER, AND 

PRESIDENT, MISSOURI FARMERS UNION 

General MCMAHON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Missouri 

River flooding of 2011, as well as the ongoing and future activities 

of the Northwestern Division of the Army Corps of Engineers to respond to the flood. I am John McMahon, commander of the Northwestern Division, and I want to acknowledge upfront that the 

Corps is fully cognizant of the physical, economic, social, emotional 

impacts of the many people in the basin due to the flooding this 

year. 

Actions by our Omaha and Kansas City districts during the Missouri River flooding this summer were extremely effective in reducing flood damages. The Corps expended approximately $83 million 

on fortifying existing levees, building temporary levees, monitoring 

dam and levee safety and other activities, such as providing flood 

fight supplies to state of emergency offices within Corps authorities 

under Public Law 84–99. 

For example, in South Dakota the Corps constructed approximately 4 miles of temporary levees in Pierre and Fort Pierre. Temporary measures were also constructed for the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe to mitigate risk to the causeway and the water intake. 

The Missouri River main stem reservoir system was operated in 

2011 in accordance with the master manual. The water conditions 

in the Missouri Basin have been extraordinary this year, particularly above Sioux City, Iowa. Compared to the normal 25 million 

acre feet of runoff, we expected this year’s runoff to exceed 60 million acre feet, more than double the average, and the highest on 

record. Of critical importance is the understanding that May, June, 

and July of this year were the third, first, and fifth highest months 

of inflow in the 113-year period of record. 

Each year the Corps evacuates flood control space before the 

spring and summer runoff occurs, and this year was no different. 

84 

All of the 2010 flood water had been evacuated by late January of 

2011, and we had the entire required 16.3 million acre feet of space 

available at the start of this year’s runoff season. Our computer 

models demonstrated that since 1898, this storage would have been 

enough every previous year to adequately capture spring runoff 

and manage water flow throughout the system. 

We witnessed a tremendously different and new hydrologic data 

point this year. Consequently, we are taking a hard analytical look 

at what this information may suggest in terms of future operation 

and alternatives and adjustments. 

In addition to the Corps internal review of reservoir operations, 

we initiated an external review of our operations, which is currently underway and scheduled to conclude in the end of December. 

And we intend to make the results and outcomes of that available 

to this committee and the public in early January. 

The Corps followed and continues to follow a carefully evaluated 

water evacuation plan over the past several months. High releases 

were maintained through mid-August, and then stepped down at a 

pace that reduced risk to infrastructure, levees, and river banks, 

and allowed the flood plain to drain. The plan included fall and 

winter release rates low enough to allow continued inspection and 

repair of both Federal and non-Federal infrastructure. 

The Missouri River Flood of 2011 officially concluded on the 17th 

of October 2011. The water evacuation plan in place is allowing 

homeowners, farmers, and businesses to get back on their properties to begin their repair and recovery as quickly as possible. And 

the objective of our plan is to bring the entire system back to its 

full annual flood control capacity by the 2012 runoff season. In addition, we are committed to maintaining a flexible posture and aggressive release schedule throughout the winter and spring, if it 

appears that 2012 will be another high runoff year. 

Now that the river is receding, we have begun post-flood actions. 

These include an assessment to review the water management operation, a technical review of the flood fight response, and a concerted effort to assess and repair infrastructure such as dams, levees, and navigation structures. 

Concurrent with these actions, the Corps, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and the Department of Agriculture are cochairing the Missouri River Flood Task Force. The task force provides a forum for coordination among Federal, tribal, State, stakeholder, and local government partners within the States of Nebraska, Montana, Iowa, South and North Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, and Missouri on flood recovery and related flood risk management actions and initiatives. The task force will streamline governmental processes and decisionmaking, accelerate necessary assessments, coordinate permitting requirements, and apply agile and 

critical thinking to the problems that we face. 

Since May of 2011, our Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works has exercised her emergency authority provided under Public Law 84–99 to transfer funds from other appropriation accounts 

to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation account 

to respond to the flooding and to begin addressing repairs from this 

year’s disasters. To date, the Corps has completed five transfers, 

totaling $282 million. The last two transfers, totaling $207 million, 

85 

allowed the Corps to begin addressing a portion of the highest priority life and safety repair requirements, nationwide. 

In order to develop the best estimates of repair requirements nationwide, local Corps districts and divisions, including my Northwestern Division, working with non-Federal sponsors, are inspecting damaged projects and preparing assessment reports. The Corps 

has set up a rigorous process for technical experts to examine the 

requirements and prioritize those requirements based on risk to 

life and safety, among other parameters. The Corps is prioritizing 

projects to leverage its resources to complete assessments and proceed forward with the highest priority repairs. To date, $54.6 million have been used on the Missouri River flood recovery. 

We recently concluded eight open house sessions and public 

meetings in cities throughout the basin to listen to the concerns of 

our citizens as part of the annual operating plan development for 

2012. As part of these meetings, we communicated that the top priority of the division and the Corps is to responsibly prepare for the 

2012 runoff season. 

A primary concern raised in the public meetings was the Corps 

strategy to evacuate water from the Missouri reservoir system back 

to the designated amount of flood control storage. That is the design 16.3 million acre feet, which equates to approximately 22 percent of the storage in the system. Given record runoff, the Corps 

has initiated a technical analysis to determine whether more reservoir space might be needed to be reserved for flood control purposes in the future. 

At this point, the Corps has assumed a more flexible posture, as 

water is evacuated through the system for the remainder of the fall 

and early winter. The Corps will also take a more aggressive 

stance with winter and spring releases. The Corps will communicate more frequently and more broadly as the 2012 runoff season 

unfolds. We will conduct bimonthly conference calls and during 

those calls, dialogue will continue with Federal, State, county, and 

local officials, tribes, emergency management officials, and independent experts, and the press to discuss the conditions on the 

ground and the current Corps reservoir release plans and forecasts. 

Audio files of these conference calls will be made widely available. 

In summary, the 2011 flooding was the result of an extreme hydrologic event. While much damage occurred in the basin, the system of dams and levees functioned as intended and prevented or 

provided substantial benefit. Without them, the damages and safety risks would have been much greater. While the system remains 

vulnerable until the levee repairs are made, no major deficiencies 

have been identified to date that would preclude normal operation 

of the dams in the spring of 2012. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for allowing me to testify about the flooding and the future operation of the Missouri system. And I would be happy to answer questions of the Members 

here. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

General MCMAHON. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Waters, welcome. 

Mr. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I have submitted written testimony, and 

86 

attached to that testimony is a report from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, FAPRI, in the University of Missouri. And I would ask that my testimony and that report be entered in the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

Mr. WATERS. Thank you. I am looking forward to answering 

questions, so I will try to be brief and just hit the highlights of that 

written testimony. 

First of all, the 2011 flooding. You know, it is not rocket science, 

what happened. We had too much snow and too much rain in the 

upper basin. The system of dams and reservoirs could not handle 

the runoff. The flood control systems below the dams and between 

the dams couldn’t handle those record releases that we saw. So it 

is not really a question of what happened, but more of a question 

of why and, even more importantly, what do we do about it now. 

I believe there is not enough flood control storage in the reservoirs. We have these six huge reservoirs in the upper basin, but 

only 6 percent is dedicated exclusively for flood control. There is 

another 16 percent that is for flood control and all these other uses. 

And I believe that 16 percent needs to be used exclusively for flood 

control also, so we have a full 22 percent that would be dedicated 

for flood control. 

The other thing I see is there is more water entering the river 

faster. In the written comments I give an example of how the development over the last 20 to 30 years has changed the way that 

water enters the river. All the concrete and asphalt and roofs that 

have been developed over the last 20 or 30 years has water coming 

into the river faster and more of it. And we haven’t increased our 

levee improvements or flood control projects on the Missouri River 

that help compensate for that development. 

That leads me to the Corps budget. The Corps of Engineers 

budget is very much out of balance. The 2012 budget for the Missouri River recovery program—that is the fish and birds and the 

endangered species program—was $72.8 million. On the other 

hand, Operation Maintenance budget is only $6.2 million. And the 

problem I see is the Corps follows the money. They are seeing that 

$72.8 million, and they focus on fish and wildlife, and not flood control. 

In fact, since 1992, the Corps has spent $616 million on fish and 

birds. That is well over a half-a-billion dollars. And according to 

the National Academy of Science, most of that money was wasted 

because what they have been doing is not working. 

You know, we can spend $20 million on a levee project, and it 

puts people to work, creates jobs, and when we are done we have 

a levee sitting there that you can physically see that is providing 

protection to homes, property, and lives. When we spend $20 million on fish and birds, more likely than not we end up with a 200 

or 300-page study and a report that sits on a shelf. And then we 

also get a box of hotel receipts and airline ticket receipts from 

these bureaucrats and agency employees traveling all over the 

country for meetings and conferences and seminars. This has got 

to change. 

In my experience, I have only seen two things that changed the 

Corps’ focus. The first one is legal action through the courts, and 

87 

that is long and drawn out. The other is legislation. And I believe 

this committee can start now to force the Corps to focus on flood 

control. 

The third point I would like to make has to do with the levees. 

Been a lot of talk about the levees and the damage there. And I 

just want to remind the committee that it is the responsibility of 

Congress through Public Law 84–99 to fund levee repairs. And it 

is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers and the local sponsors to fix those levees. 

With the NOAA forecasts for the coming year showing above normal precipitation, these folks are going to be at even greater risk 

going into next spring. And so the people along the river aren’t interested in task force and working groups and committees and 

these seminars. They are interested in funding the levee repairs, 

and getting them fixed. 

The last point I want to make has to do with alternatives to 

levee repairs. There has been a lot of talk about not repairing levees. And in my written comments, I stress the importance of the 

fertile farmland found along our Nation’s rivers. You know, even if 

we took out all the infrastructure, all the roads, businesses, homes, 

and power lines, et cetera, there is still highly productive farmland 

left in the river bottoms that deserves and is warranted protection. 

With the growing population that we see now and in the future, 

inexpensive and safe food is a matter of national security. And I 

think when you take land out of production, that is a threat to our 

national security. 

I see my time is up, and I will yield the microphone and just say 

thank you again for the invitation. I am really looking forward to 

answering questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Good afternoon, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Carnahan, distinguished committee members. My name is 

Brad Lawrence. I am a mechanical engineer working as the director of public works for the city of Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 

Fort Pierre is situated just 5 miles downstream of the Oahe 

Project, the third dam of a six-dam system. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify about the Missouri River Flood of 2011. I intend to 

discuss two major topics: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ response and the impact to the smaller communities along the Missouri River. 

There are two major sources of water to the reservoirs, snowpack 

and rainfall. I have two slides that I will incorporate into my testimony today. 

The first one is the snow water equivalent slide, figure number 

one, for the upper Missouri River Basin. This slide is the basis for 

my testimony, and covers March 1st through June 30th. The top 

line in green is the snow water equivalency for the northern Rockies. The second line, in red, is the snow water equivalency for the 

central Rockies. And the bottom line, in blue, is the snow water 

equivalency for the plains snowpacks. The rising lines are increased amounts of water and snow that hasn’t melted that will 

eventually run into the basin. The decreasing lines are the melting 

88 

and running off of the stored water in the snowpacks. This information comes from the National Weather Service. 

In early 2011 it was apparent that the plains snowpack was 

going to contribute a significant amount of runoff. I wrote a widely 

disseminated email indicating the risk for flooding was increased 

by the plains snowpack. While it looks comparatively small, the 

plains snowpack covers a vast area. Even at only 3 inches of snow 

water equivalency, the runoff from the plains filled more than 50 

percent of the total available flood storage by May 1. The plains 

snowpack and the snow water equivalency was a visible and quantifiable risk. The accumulation peaked just prior to March 1st, and 

then melted off by May 1st. 

On Fort Peck, by May 1st, approximately 33 percent of the storage available on March 1st was filled by the plains snowpack runoff. On Garrison, the amount was closer to 58 percent of the storage available on March 1st was consumed by this plains snowpack 

runoff. And on Lake Oahe, nearly 80 percent of the storage available on March 1st was consumed by the plains snowpack runoff. 

The next graph is for the Garrison reservoir. The key to take 

away from this slide is that when the blue line is above the green 

line, the reservoir is filling. And when the green line is above the 

blue line, the reservoir is draining. The inflow curves show many 

aspects of the runoff into the reservoirs. The sharp spikes are from 

significant increases in the runoff over short periods of time, either 

from rapid snow melts or rain events, or a combination of the two. 

Back on the snow water equivalency chart, you can see that the 

mountain snowpacks climbed relatively steadily to their maximum 

values near the 20th of April and began melting around the 1st of 

May. Please note the sharp drop from May 1st to May 10th. That 

sharp drop creates a significant amount of water that runs off into 

the reservoirs. 

The sharp rises in the Garrison reservoir, figure two, inflow indicates significant events. You can clearly see the spikes of the inflow 

from rainfalls and rapid snow melts. While these spikes are significant, they pale in comparison to the large hump that starts in early 

May and continues to the end of July. That large hump is the overall mountain snowpack runoff. 

The notion that the perfect storm rains in Montana caused this 

major flood just doesn’t hold water. You can see for yourself that 

while the volume of water from those events is significant, it 

doesn’t measure up to the volume contained in the plains or mountain snowpack runoffs, both of which were visible and measurable 

prior to the perfect storm. 

It is also interesting to note that the Corps of Engineers began 

increasing the flows from Garrison significantly prior to any rain 

falling in Montana. In fact, they were at near-record releases prior 

to the rain falling. 

While no one could have predicted the heavy rains in Montana 

in May, everyone could have predicted that the water stored in the 

snowpacks was going to run off. The failure to determine the risk 

involved in the water stored in the plains and mountain snowpacks 

led to a lack of decisive action. The reality is that with this much 

water stored in the snow, it was inevitable that we would flood. 

89 

The lack of preemptive action led to much higher stages on the 

river, and consequently, more damage. 

Nearly 50 percent of the residents of Fort Pierre were evacuated 

from their homes, many for as many as 100 days. There are still 

nearly 100 homes that are unoccupied. Our little community is financially devastated after this event. Others downstream are in a 

similar or worse situation. The duration of this event is unprecedented and is the root cause of the financial hardship. 

The most troubling issue for many South Dakotans was a lack 

of clear communication from the Corps. An early warning of any 

kind was never issued. Even during initial stages of the event, the 

communication of anticipated water levels kept changing daily. 

That made preparation nearly impossible. Greg Powell, the city engineer from the city of Chamberlain, says he is still waiting for a 

call to warn him that his local reservoir is going up 4 feet over a 

June weekend. 

In closing, I would like to use the words from Jeff Dooley, community manager for Dakota Dunes. He writes, ‘‘The summer of 

2011 will be ingrained in the memory of everyone who lives, works, 

or farms along the Missouri River. This event has changed people’s 

lives forever. My personal property was not damaged by the flood, 

but as the manager of the community I had to witness the distress 

caused by this event as my friends and neighbors were asked to 

leave their homes behind. This cannot happen again. 

‘‘We need to find out if and why these extreme releases were necessary, and recognize or admit what we could or should have done 

to prevent it. Again, in a controlled river system there has to be 

an expected margin of error. But this year’s releases far exceeded 

any reasonable expectation of those margins.’’ I concur with Jeff’s 

findings. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to speak at this hearing, and I will be available for questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Ms. Kunkel, welcome. 

Ms. KUNKEL. Chairman Mica and the members of the committee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before you all and speak today 

as an elected official of Holt County, Missouri, and I am here to 

represent those people who live in a vast flood plain who have been 

devastatingly impacted by this year’s floods. I would like to share 

with you a bit of their story, as well as their overall concerns with 

the Corps of Engineers and their insistence that they retain the 

rural way of life that they have had, lived, and managed for over 

170 years in my county. And I will be brief on my remarks, so that 

we can move on to questions. 

I do want to reiterate that I most assuredly agree with the congressmen and women who came and sat at this table before me. 

There are many issues to discuss related to this flood. Certainly 

there was snow and rain beyond measure that we have seen in this 

system before. But certainly there is a shouldered responsibility by 

the Corps of Engineers for how they looked at that, how they managed it, and how they opened the gates and sent a deluge of water 

into my county, putting 630 people out of their homes, covering 

over 120,000 acres of farm ground in 10-foot-deep water with 3-foot 

waves. It devastated homes that had been built to national flood 

90 

insurance protection standards. Those homes had been elevated 

one 1 above the base flood elevation. But the water came higher 

than base flood elevation. And it lasted for 106 days. 

My county’s western border borders Nebraska and Kansas. I 

have a 52-mile western border that is all leveed. Some of it is nonFederal levee. Some of it is Federal. I have 32 breaches in my county. One of them is a half-a-mile wide. Some of them are 50 feet. 

We don’t yet have clear estimates on what the money is going 

to be to fix what is there. And that is extremely frustrating for the 

people of Holt County, because while the Corps was telling us, ‘‘We 

don’t have the money to send people out to take a look at your levees and determine the estimable damage,’’ they were at the courthouse buying land to put into mitigation projects. And that is the 

problem for the people in Holt County. The Corps has been able to 

buy 8,000 acres in my county, take it off the tax rolls, take it off 

the yearly economic annual production that goes with agriculture, 

creating pallid sturgeon chutes and wetland sites within my county. 

I also have an 8,000-acre national wildlife refuge that we hold in 

high esteem. We very much believe in conservation in our rural 

area. They brings hunters to the area. They are a big part of our 

economy. But what we are seeing with what the Corps is doing is 

creating pallid sturgeon chutes that has put water right up against 

the levees. Those are the areas where my levee district members 

had immediate problems as this river came down. The chutes put 

water into the levees, causing overtopping and degradation of the 

substructure of the levees. 

So, I am going to ask that the Corps be responsible to Congress, 

once again calling that flood control be the primary purpose of the 

Corps, and that we take a look at removing some elements of the 

Endangered Species Act as part of its compliance, so that my county can try to get back on its feet and move forward. 

And I will yield my time so that we can move on to questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Oswald, welcome. 

Mr. OSWALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for allowing me to share my experience with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Missouri River inundation of 2011. I am 

a fifth generation Missouri farmer from Atchison County, Missouri. 

I have lived my entire life where I was born in the house built by 

my parents on our family farm in the Missouri River valley near 

Langdon. 

Since it was built in 1939, our home has been touched by the 

Missouri River three times. First, when after a few days’ advance 

warning in the spring of 1952, rapid snowmelt caused unavoidable 

flooding along newly constructed levee L550. That flood did little 

damage to our farmstead. My parents, my sister, and I returned to 

our home within 3 weeks. Dad raised a good crop that year. The 

second was in the summer of 1993, when heavy rains fell across 

the entire Missouri watershed. Following the late July flood, my 

wife and I and our daughter returned in mid-August. Most fields 

and roads were undamaged. 

91 

After several weeks’ advance notice, levee L550 breached for the 

third time on June 23, 2011. We were told well ahead of time to 

expect a flood. The reaction among most of us was that if flooding 

could be anticipated so far in advance, why wasn’t something done 

to prevent it. The managed, uninterrupted flow of this flood kept 

us away from our home for more than 100 days until October. 

Unlike most homes in the valley today, ours is still habitable. 

FEMA insurance adjustors have placed the insured damage to our 

farmstead at over $30,000. That is minor, compared to my neighbor’s heavy losses. But the adjuster did tell me that he could adjust 

more losses if I had had more insurance. 

Some of the most productive valued farmland in Missouri is on 

the river bottom in Atchison County. According to the satellite imagery study by Scott—Dr. Scott Brown of the University of Missouri, at least 47,000 acres of crops were lost there. Local officials 

on the ground estimated over 60,000 in earlier estimates, due in 

part to an inundation map circulated by the Corps implying an unprecedented bluff-to-bluff flood from Gavins Point to St. Louis. But 

really, on our farm, just as on so many others, final determination 

has not been made because crop insurance adjustors have not visited where much of the area remained inaccessible into November. 

About 1,400 acres of contracted seed soybeans and specialty food corn worth over $1 million were lost on our farm. Close to half 

those acres were under irrigation. Crop insurance based on my 10- 

year average yield will cover only part of the loss. Dr. Brown estimated in his study that, for most farmers, combined insurance and 

disaster payments are still insufficient. But no matter what the 

settlement, as a result of this flood our farm and many others have 

not grown the food and energy crops that American needs now. 

Over the last several years, river management has made life especially difficult for bottom land farmers like me. Damage done by 

this flood to many productive fields is irreparable. We have huge 

sand dunes and blowouts. Sandstone chunks from a 60-foot deep 

crater litter one field. Drainage ditches that should allow flood 

water to drain back to the main channel are plugged with silt and 

sand from the river. Fertile fields lay stark and barren. 

Repairs to just 4 miles of Highway 136, a major two-lane river 

crossing in our county, cost over $3 million to perform. Jobs and 

commerce at the intersection with Interstate 29 were lost for 

months during the flood, when the highway closed. Many local residents who work across the river just 10 minutes away were faced 

with 21⁄2-hour one-way commutes. Rural roads like the 7 miles in 

Langdon’s road district were left impassible by washouts and debris. 

Work to bring them back to normal continues. FEMA is helping, 

but only 75 percent of those costs are eligible for aid. The way 

things stand now, without levee protection, all our work and money 

spent could be for nothing if the water returns. But the estimated 

cost to repair levee L550 is $47 million. To date, less than half of 

that amount is promised. 

Land, our most valuable agricultural asset in Missouri, faces lowered tax valuation in flooded areas, placing a strain on basic local 

government services, including local rural schools. Millions of dollars in farm buildings and homes have been destroyed. 

92 

Besides personal property, Missouri County assessors are required to reassess ag land values up or down, as situations change. 

Our county clerk estimated that, with continued flooding, assessed 

values on the river bottom land could drop from $4.7 million to just 

a little over $238,000. That is going to cost local governments thousands in revenue and farmers millions in productivity each year 

the flooding continues. Property owners and farmers feel it first. 

But eventually, the entire community takes the hit. 

Because of the damaging length and severity of this flood, and 

lack of funding for maintenance and repair, flooding again in 2012 

seems almost certain, unless Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers can make flood control their number one priority. 

Thank you, sir. I appreciate you hearing me. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. And good luck in the future. You have got 

a lot of challenges there to work with. 

I will start the first round of questions. And General McMahon, 

my first question is, we know there is at least eight competing interests, you know, flood control, irrigation, municipal water supply, 

and so on. How do you balance those competing interests? And is 

any of them more important than the others? 

General MCMAHON. Thank you for the question, Chairman 

Gibbs. The eight authorized purposes are borne out of the 1944 

Flood Control Act and subsequent legislation and judicial rulings 

that are all now manifest in the master manual, which is the 

guideline for how we balance the eight authorized purposes. And 

through that legislation and those judicial rulings, the two predominant purposes are flood control and navigation. And they are 

very tightly balanced, such that adjustment under the current regime of law and judicial rulings is minimal. 

Mr. GIBBS. You just said flood control and navigation should be 

the core mission. I would agree with that. But how do you answer 

the amount of dollars going for other projects, environmental stuff 

and renovation? 

And also, we know that the amount of damage out there, the administration and Secretary Darcy has not come to Congress and 

asked for emergency funding. You are actually having to take 

funds from other projects to rebuild these levees. I mean how do 

you balance that? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. So, you know, the Corps receives 

appropriations in different accounts: investigations, construction, 

and operations and maintenance. And so the numbers that you 

heard today are only one—they only reflect the Operations and 

Maintenance account. They don’t reflect the Construction and the 

Investigations account. 

When you look at all appropriations across all the business lines 

in 2011, we had: $72.8 million allocated and spent for flood risk 

management; $15 million for navigation; $61.4 million for hydropower; $13.3 million for environmental stewardship; $800,000 for 

water supply; $21.6 million for recreation; and $87 million for environmental restoration. So that was last year’s budgeted and spent 

amount, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. I believe in 2012 the request for ecosystem restoration is $470 million. 

93 

General MCMAHON. Well, I am just talking about on the Missouri River. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, OK, OK. 

General MCMAHON. So I think the figure you are citing is across 

the Corps. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

General MCMAHON. With respect to the administration’s request, 

as you say, sir, we are involved, through the Secretary’s office, of 

making transfers of money that has been appropriated for other 

purposes. The wiggle room associated with those is narrowing as 

each iteration unfolds. And at some point we are going to need new 

money to continue the very important work that needs to unfold 

with respect to repair and restoration of the system to get back to 

its pre-2011—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I guess that is where I am a little surprised, 

because our capacity for flood control in this basin is—has not got 

to a level where—getting ready for next spring, and to do these repairs, I’m thinking the seasonal issue is to get repairs done. I think 

you got major challenges. 

My next question. We heard some testimony from some of the 

Members. What is your priority in your systems to collect the data, 

you know, what is going up in the mountains, the head waters, the 

monitoring of that? How nimble is the Corps to make those adjustments, so they can see that they have got a huge snowpack and 

they have got—you know, the rainfall starts up in the mountains. 

Do you have the monitoring data to, you know, make those adjustments in a real-time basis? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. I mean, in short, there is an extensive network in the plains and in the mountains for measuring 

snow. And, of course, we rely on the National Weather Service to 

make rain forecasts. 

Could the system be more extensive and improved? Probably so. 

And we will get some feedback from the independent external 

panel that has been chartered to look at how we collect data, how 

we use it to forecast, how we integrate with the National Weather 

Service and so on, that may lend itself to improve procedures. So 

that report, as I said, is due out at the end of December. 

But I think, in general, we have state-of-the-art systems to collect and integrate information and make the best water management decisions that are based on the best available information. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

General MCMAHON. It is not perfect, though. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. We will probably get back to that. We heard testimony from some of my colleagues about—can you comment about 

this—how much red tape there is doing these restoration projects, 

getting the levees rebuilt? Is there anything that we can do here 

in Congress to help streamline, make it easier to expedite those 

projects? 

General MCMAHON. There are steps associated with anything the 

Corps undertakes, as a bureaucratic part of Government. I won’t 

deny that. They are generally necessary, and generally following 

the process keeps you out of court and lets you get down to business. 

94 

And so, there are emergency conditions that allow us to streamline steps in the process, and we are exercising every one of those. 

And I will add that the Missouri River Flood Task Force is aimed 

at bringing all the Federal agencies to exercise their authorities, 

permitting and what not, so that we are—left hand and right hand 

know what each other are doing, and we are making the best available decisions, and expediting those decisions to minimize the red 

tape, as you call it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. My time is up. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And I want to thank all the panel 

for being here. And again, the folks that traveled all the way here 

from Missouri, we appreciate you all being here to share your stories. 

I want to start with Richard Oswald. You have been out here 

many times, talking about these issues. And I wanted to specifically get you to focus on what improvements could have been made 

in communicating with you and communities along the river about 

the floods and the impacts that they have. 

Mr. OSWALD. Well, I think that the decisionmaking that goes into 

an event like this is opaque to most of us in the country. We aren’t 

familiar with how these decisions are arrived at. But I think that 

when you involve the entire community in the discussion about decisions that are made, rules that are followed, goals and objectives, 

then maybe you have a better outcome. 

I think it is clear that the needs—the importance of rural America, especially productive areas like northwest Missouri, who are 

incredibly productive areas that produce all kinds of crops and energy crops that we need, and I think that is ignored a lot of times 

for other goals. And I think we need to look at the value that rural 

America offers and consider that in any of these discussions. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And, you know, we heard the general describe 

some of the efforts that they have had to—have multiple community meetings and to get input from the community in terms of 

what they are doing. Obviously, we are having this hearing today 

to learn from what happened. 

But do you feel like those are valuable, and do you think they 

need to be done differently, or there need to be other areas to get 

that input where it needs to be to decisionmakers? 

Mr. OSWALD. Well, I think that this points out the importance of 

everyone being involved, not just the Corps making these decisions, 

but Congress needs to be aware of the decisions that are made, and 

why. And, of course, we rely on our representatives in Congress to 

look after our best interests always. And so I believe that, for too 

long, Congress has really not been that involved in this decisionmaking. So I would like to see them do that more. 

But I would have to say that, you know, the Corps came to our 

community and way before this flood occurred, and visited the city 

water plant that is just across the road from some of the land that 

we farm, some of our machine storage, some place where we work 

quite often. And they placed a mark on the side of the building of 

that Rockport City water plant that was far higher, by at least 8 

feet, than either the flood of 1952 or 1993. 

And so, a lot of the residents, all of us who had lived there 

through those other floods, wondered where that mark came from. 

95 

We knew where the water levels were in those floods, knew them 

very well. I even have a mark in one of my farm buildings at home, 

marked it in 1993. That is where the water level was. And if the 

water had gone to the level the Corps said that we should prepare 

for, it would have been at least 8 feet deeper than what we actually 

experienced in 1952, 1993, and 2011. 

And so, a lot of us—— 

Mr. CARNAHAN. That seems like a gigantic missing the mark 

here. 

Mr. OSWALD. It is puzzling. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Right. General, I want to go to you real quick 

and I am—with the bit of time I have on this round. 

Funding. Obviously, we are in tight budgets here. But you are 

aware the waterways users have come together over this last year, 

working with the Corps to increase the—you know, voluntarily 

say—to raise the diesel fuel taxes that they all pay in navigating 

the river, and also talking about reforms with the Corps. Talk 

about the impact of that and how that can help in going forward, 

in terms of resources. 

General MCMAHON. I am aware of the collaboration that has occurred with the navigation industry and the Corps and others to 

seek a better leveraging of public and private funds, Congressman. 

I think, as with any such proposal, there are puts and takes to it. 

There are advantages and disadvantages. I believe that it is working its way through the system. And I think any such arrangement 

would be helpful. 

And I think we need to look at the other authorized purposes, 

recreation being another example of where money that is brought 

into the Government can be leveraged with private money, much 

like what was done with the residential community initiative that 

the Army and the Air Force and the Navy undertook under special 

legislation that allowed private money to build housing for soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and Marines; quality houses on installations and 

reap the rent, the basic allowance for quarters that the soldier, 

sailor, airman, Marine would get. So it was win-win-win. It was 

quality housing, it was leveraging other people’s money, not DOD 

money, and it paid a dividend, if you will, to the investor. That 

kind of arrangement we need to think outside the box on, and see 

how that would apply across all authorized purposes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first off, General, 

thank you for your service to our country. I have read your bio. You 

are a highly decorated officer, and thank you very much for what 

you are doing. Not only what you are doing now for the Corps, but 

also what you have done in the past. So thank you for your service, 

sir. 

As a military officer myself, we definitely are painfully aware, 

from what we are talking about today, of what the problem is. The 

question I have now is: How do we move forward? What do we 

need to do next? Can you kind of give us a snapshot? 

For example, one of the things that actually affected us up in the 

Eighth District of Minnesota is that 460 trains per day had to be 

96 

rerouted because of flooding. What are we doing to protect something like that from occurring into the future? 

And then I have a follow-on, sir. 

General MCMAHON. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

You know, I think, first and foremost, as you say, and has been 

suggested here, we need to work together. Because this problem is 

bigger than any of us. And I think there is clear resonance across 

the basin for the value and the importance of flood control. 

There is existing flexibility to do smart things in the near term. 

But long term, we are probably going to need to relook at new legislation to authorize and appropriate, for example, a revision of the 

master manual, as one example. 

There is also the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, 

which in some camps is viewed as a conspiracy to do away with 

the navigation on the Missouri River. In fact, it is designed to look 

at all eight authorized purposes and review them in the context of 

current contemporary needs and future needs, looking out 50 years. 

Well, that wasn’t funded. 

So, there are things like that in the works that I think we need 

to dust off and reconsider how we are looking at them, and the useful purposes that might spin out of those kinds of investments. Not 

that we want to spend too much money and spend too much time 

studying. 

We need to come up with a set of recommendations against making those eight authorized purposes relevant to contemporary and 

future needs, make a set of recommendations to the Congress, and 

then have the Congress authorize adjustments across those eight 

authorized purposes as might be recommended, as an example, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. And one of the things we are 

painfully aware of here in Congress is that things take time. What 

I am hearing today is that we don’t have too much time, because 

we are expecting the same—possibly the same—type of flooding 

happening next. 

For example, in the trains that we were just talking—I just mentioned, I mean, what immediately can be done to help ensure that 

these 460 trains aren’t having to be rerouted, and making sure that 

we get produce where—you know, materials where they are supposed to be? 

And as a follow-on, if I can, being a military officer, like I said, 

myself, we do answer to civilian authorities. And you kind of alluded to it. Is there anything that would be precluding your ability 

to combat this flood now or in the future that has been mandated 

down by civilian authorities that would prevent you from executing 

your mission? 

General MCMAHON. With respect to the various components of 

infrastructure—railroads, roads, bridges, intakes, water intakes, 

and so on—there are many examples, a lot of which was damaged 

as a result of this event, and some of which has been funded for 

repair, either by private money—in the railroad’s case by public 

money through the Federal Highway Administration is another example. I know Interstate 680 east of Omaha into Iowa has been repaired and opened now since the flood occurred and damaged that 

very severely. 

97 

I know States and localities have undertaken local repairs to 

local roads and bridges. All that is unfolding, as we speak, now 

that the water is off of the flood plain and we can see—assess the 

damage, make estimates, and apply funding to those repairs. 

For that infrastructure that the Corps has responsibility for, as 

we said earlier, we have been moving money around, transferring 

funds to the tune of about $280 million so far. But it is a very 

small downpayment on a much larger bill, estimated across the 

United States—due to not just this flooding event, but Mississippi 

flooding, hurricanes on the East Coast, and other events—to the 

tune of over $2 billion, I think Ms. Darcy testified a few months 

ago. So that money needs to be appropriated for—in my opinion— 

and the sooner, the better. And I think that is clearly one of the 

big messages that all of us need to have resonance on. 

I am not aware, sir, of any authorities that restrict or constrain 

what I need to do, with respect to getting the system repaired and 

restored, other than getting the appropriations in hand so we can 

move out. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. I am over time and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our ranking 

member. I appreciate being here—and also to our witnesses. 

I live in Maryland. And so I don’t really have any particular pecuniary interest in what happens along the Missouri, except the 

fact that the importance of both commercial and other activity 

along the river have a real impact on people like me, who just want 

to go to the grocery store and get good food. 

And so, that said, I think it means for us, as taxpayers—and 

those of us who are in Maryland who have other kinds of water interests—that we also share a responsibility for what happens along 

that river, and then particularly when there are catastrophic 

events that have a deep impact on the agriculture, commercial viability, you know, enjoyment and recreation and other uses along 

the river. 

One of my observations in listening to the testimony is that I am 

baffled by why there isn’t a more kind of comprehensive management strategy under one authority for the entire river basin. I 

know that in Maryland, when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay and 

our ability to protect that, the Nation’s largest estuary, and it involves, you know, multiple States and jurisdictions, that we have 

had to have a more comprehensive management approach to that, 

because no one individual jurisdiction or interest can possibly meet 

the responsibility, and because not one of those interests is more 

important than the other. 

And so, I am just a little confused as to why, over this long period of years under which there have been various strategies employed to manage the events that occur in the flood plain, there 

isn’t some more comprehensive single point of authority and coordination for Federal resources and other resources that need to be 

put into play. 

Earlier there was a fair amount of testimony in the earlier panel 

and some on this one about the particular purpose in fish and wildlife management, including endangered species, and that impact 

on—you know, as a contributing factor of this devastating event. 

98 

And I do note, just in the reading of the testimony and some other 

resources, that in fact, some of the management strategies that the 

Corps has used were, in fact, not employed that would have gone 

to the regular uses and purposes for endangered species and for 

fish and wildlife and habitat management. And so, I don’t really 

think that has anything to do with what happened here. And I 

hope that we could get actually beyond singling out one particular 

purpose, instead of looking at this a little bit more comprehensively. 

I also just note—and had to do a little bit of checking—but the 

study that, General McMahon, you just mentioned, the Missouri 

River Authorized Purposes Study, MRAPS, was authorized at $25 

million. It was appropriated in 2009 and 2010 at $7.3 million. And 

then it was suspended in 2011. 

And as a disinterested party, I am unclear why anyone would not 

want to look at all of the authorized purposes, look at the reasons 

that they are authorized, figure out strategies to balance those purposes and impacts, and why we wouldn’t fund a study to do that. 

It would certainly mean to me, as a taxpayer in Maryland, that 

there would be a better expenditure of funding if I knew how those 

things could be managed in a more useful way to meet the various 

needs that are present in the river basin. Again, just an observation. 

And then, lastly—I will allow General McMahon to answer this— 

in a recent op-ed you wrote that, notwithstanding the legitimate 

calls for preeminence of flood control purpose, there are many other 

means to the same end that ought to be considered as we go forward. Flood risk can be mitigated beyond creating more space in 

the existing system. And then you go on to describe other kinds of 

structural and non-structural things that should be considered. 

And I wondered if you could elaborate on that so that we don’t 

just confine the—our questions about what can happen only to 

these very traditional means of levee and reservoir management. 

Thank you. 

General MCMAHON. Congresswoman, thank you for your observations. 

With respect to your question, I think we need to take a comprehensive look at all aspects of this problem and think broadly 

and deeply about the future, the long-term future of the basin, so 

that we make wise investment of limited Federal dollars in this 

very constrained fiscal environment that we are all in, and do 

smart things with whatever money is ultimately appropriated to 

this end. 

And so, the ideas expressed in that op-ed are not necessarily new 

ones, but they are ones that came out of the 1994 Galloway Report 

after the 1993 flood event in the Missouri River Basin, and others 

that have evolved since then, to think deeply and broadly about 

this opportunity to seek win-win, synergistic-type solutions that 

look across all aspects of the problem and apply—and it has been 

done successfully in places like Rapid City, South Dakota, as an example, on a much smaller scale. But you go there, and you see the 

benefits of that kind of thinking applied to a much smaller-scale 

problem, and yet it is a wonderful thing to see that kind of thinking applied to that kind of a problem. 

99 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Long? 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here today. 

General, I have a—in part of Mr. Lawrence’s testimony he said 

the most troubling issue for many South Dakotans was a lack of 

clear communication from the Corps. An early warning of any kind 

was never issued, even during the initial stages of the event. Communication of anticipated water levels kept changing daily. That 

made preparation nearly impossible. 

Greg Powell, city engineer of city of Chamberlain says he is still 

waiting for a call to warn him that his local reservoir was going 

up 4 feet over the weekend—over a June weekend. 

And my part of Missouri—which is not the Missouri River part, 

I am down in the southwest part of the State, Joplin/Branson/ 

Springfield area—we have Table Rock Lake down there. Earlier in 

the spring, before the Missouri River problems, we had flooding 

issues down there. And someone from the Corps—you have Table 

Rock, of course you have Beaver feeds into Table Rock, feeds into 

Taneycomo down the line to Bull Shoals, and I guess down at 

Georgetown. And of course water levels concern everybody through 

the area. 

But the Corps came to the people in Branson, along the banks 

of Taneycomo, which is below Table Rock Dam, went house to 

house and said—at 2:00 told them—my cousin happens to have a 

house there. They told him personally, said, ‘‘At 2:00 we are going 

to start releasing 28,000’’—would it be cubic feet a second or a 

minute? A second? Said, ‘‘At 2:00 today we are going to release 

28,000 cubic feet per second.’’ 

So he did the deciphering, and he said, ‘‘All right. Past experience, 28,000 cubic feet a second, it will be about 30, 35 feet from 

my house.’’ That was at 10:00 in the morning they told him they 

would do that at 2:00. At 11:30 they started releasing the 72,000— 

I am doing this from memory, so the numbers might not be—but 

you get the gist of the story. It was over three times what they said 

they were going to release, and they released it 21⁄2 hours before 

they told him. So, instead of 33 feet from my house, we now have 

41⁄2 feet of water in his house. 

With communication like Mr. Lawrence experienced in South Dakota, and the Army Corps in Branson, how can we work on a better 

line of communication, when the events like this are going to be 

thrust upon us? 

General MCMAHON. Congressman, I will admit that we probably 

could have and should have done a better job in communicating 

what transpired. During that period of mid-May to the end of May, 

there were successive bouts of rain in Wyoming, Montana, and 

North and South Dakota that were totally unprecedented, and as 

has been testified already earlier today, that really threw us for a 

loop. 

And so, over a period of 5 days, we bumped up release announcements from 85,000 cubic feet per second, which is already a record, 

to 150,000. And I understand why people would be upset, and 

would wonder what the heck is going on. But it was fundamentally 

as a result of monitoring actual rain flows, or rainfall, and then 

100 

measuring the inflows to our reservoirs that caused us to make 

those rapid adjustments in a very short period of time. 

And we worked with local and State networks of notification. 

And obviously, it wasn’t adequate enough. And that is one of the 

things that we have identified that we should do better and we will 

do better, as we enter into the 2012 runoff season with a commitment twice a month to have this big call and bring whoever wants 

to be in on the call to update them on release schedules, on forecasts, on what we are seeing and why we are seeing, what we are 

planning to do and why, and to answer questions. 

So, we intend to leverage that lesson learned as we go forward 

here, and hopefully expand the network of notification all the way 

down to individual farmers. But it is a concerted effort at many 

levels of Government, sir. 

Mr. LONG. The Birds Point levee was blown in Missouri by the 

Corps. And then the people in that area were told that they—the 

Corps would not build it back to its pre-flood or pre-whatever it 

was level, before they blew it, because they didn’t have the money 

to do it. 

There is a thinking in our part of the world that if they would 

have happened to have found a left-handed bluebird that had three 

yellow dots on its right wing, that that money would have been 

available. 

What—give me your top three things that we—if I said we are 

going to go to Redskins stadium and let the first 10,000 people or 

so in that want to kick the Corps around, we would fill it up in 

10 minutes. For some reason people like to kick the Corps and pick 

on the Corps, which—I am not for doing that. I am for figuring out 

what—how to make this better for everyone, Corps included, ourselves included. We can’t make this a perfect world, by any stretch. 

But to make it a better world in 2012 and going forward, give me 

your top three things that we, as Members of Congress, can do to 

help you do your job, which, in essence, helps the American public. 

General MCMAHON. I think, first and foremost, is the appropriation. It is, without a doubt, the most important thing. We need the 

means to achieve the ends of repair and restoration. And of course, 

you know—— 

Mr. LONG. Do you have any idea how much money you are talking? I mean to repair what needs to be done to a better state than 

it was before, what are we talking about? Do you have a number? 

General MCMAHON. I am talking about repairing it to its pre2011 flood condition, which is authorized under the Public Law 84– 

99. And in the Missouri River Basin alone, it is between $500 million and $1 billion. That number is being refined, as we speak, on 

the basis of being able to access the levees and get inside the dams 

and see the damage and make the cost estimates and the scopes 

of work. So, that work is ongoing, as we speak. 

The second thing, I think, is to work with us, as Members of 

Congress, with the Governors, with local officials, with private entities such as Tom Waters and the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association. This has got to be a team effort. I mean we are 

not going to solve this alone. 

And there are many different disparate needs here that are at 

play. And I will leave it at that. And I am not saying that one 

101 

should be better than the other, but we have got to figure out, 

based on what we have learned this year, how to make adjustments to the authorized purposes, to re-balance them and those 

kinds of things. 

And so, I think many of the pieces of legislation that have been 

suggested here today and have been on the books the last few 

months are things that we are fundamentally already doing. They 

are underway. And, as has been noted, take time to conclude. We 

are undertaking a study to understand how much more flood control space we ought to allocate on the basis of this new data point, 

as an example. Well, that will take a few months. And by the end 

of this spring, by the end of March, it should have a good recommendation to put forth for consideration of additional flood control space and the trade-offs association with such a new number. 

So those things take time, and they are underway. So we don’t 

necessarily need new legislation to cause us to do that. We are already doing it. It just takes time, and there—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, I—— 

General MCMAHON. There is many things like that that are happening, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thanks. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And hopefully we 

will have a second round, because I have a ton of questions. 

California, as you know, has a great relationship with the Army 

Corps. They do an excellent job in many of the areas. And as you 

well know, you talk about—surreal is driving up Highway 5 where 

there are hundreds of thousands of homes, and looking up in the 

levees up there, and there is a ship going by. This is surreal. 

So we deal with those issues in our State. And of course, Mother 

Nature has been throwing us many curves, and we think there are 

going to be many more to come. So working together, as you have 

indicated, General, is—working together as a team is what is going 

to help us be able to prepare, and try to help ourselves. 

Now, it is always a matter of funding. Do we have enough 

money? What takes priority? And who sets those? So that brings 

me to the authorized study that was defunded, if you will, suspended this year. And who voted to suspend those? Do you guys 

know that? 

And why did they do that, knowing that you already have 

issues—you say in 1983 and 1997 floods, or whatever those years 

were—that you may be expecting, and now having this one, looking 

back and saying, OK, we have a history, are we going to get another one this year? What is the next cycle that we are going to 

be facing the same situation, and how are we going to prepare? 

And to that, was that an earmark that has been taken down because of the money factor, not realizing it is going to cost us more 

in the long run to be able to put the farms back in operating, the 

levees back up, and the safety of all of that which you deal with 

on a daily basis? We don’t. 

So that is just food for thought. But going to the cost of the 

study, to me that would certainly be part of maybe a solution to 

bring all the partners to be able to be part of that study, so that 

everybody feels not left out, but rather, included so that there is 

more of a wider network, if you will. 

102 

A question to you, General. Did the Corps work with the tributary reservoir’s control by the Bureau of Reclamation to coordinate 

the runoff? And can you kind of touch upon what kind of coordination did take effect? And then, listening to the issue of getting communication going, how soon will that be available to coordinate 

with all the parties that want—not only want to be on it, but the 

radio stations and others that can immediately put the word out? 

General MCMAHON. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. With respect to coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation, we have a very close relationship with the bureau in the 

Northwestern Division, and we coordinated very closely as this 

event unfolded. We have what we call section VII authority. That 

is space in many of—not all of, but many of—the Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs that is reserved exclusively for and controlled 

by the Corps of Engineers for flood control. 

And so, we worked very closely to leverage that space. And sometimes that space is in the right place. And sometimes, depending 

on where the rain and the snow melt, and how fast the snow melts, 

it is in the wrong place. And so we worked very closely with the 

bureau to optimize the available space under section VII authorities. 

The Missouri River Task Force, ma’am, is the place where Federal, State, other agencies—you know, we all come together—the 

tribes, and we work through this—the four C’s, I call it: collaboration, coordination, cooperation, and communication. And so we are 

going to continue to do that. We had our first meeting back in Denver in October, and we have our next meeting in Kansas City on 

the 12th of December. 

Every week working groups have been formed, and are meeting 

virtually to work specific problems inside specific lanes. And you 

know, it is beginning to gain momentum and make a difference. 

And that work needs to continue as we go. One of those working 

groups is the strategic communications working group, which will 

help us disseminate information better as the 2012 season unfolds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The statistics you pointed out earlier, does everybody have those, have the—you shared them with the folks that 

are here, or to the Members of Congress, so they know specifically 

the amount of money that went into those different programs? 

General MCMAHON. I haven’t shared everything with them. They 

are part of the public record. But I did send a letter to Senator 

McCaskill and I copied Senator Blunt with these specific numbers 

in them, among other numbers, going back to fiscal year 2008. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would suggest you communicate that 

to these folks, so they know—— 

General MCMAHON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. What you are actually dealing 

with. 

General MCMAHON. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then, just to—and I am already over my time, 

but I have one more question. The Missouri River study would 

have addressed the ranking of priority of the stated operation’s objectives, hopefully. What would it take to get this program started 

up again? Funding for the study? Is it the cooperation of all the 

103 

folks involved? What would make this happen, so that you can try 

to avoid a worse catastrophe in the future? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, ma’am. You know, looking at the history of the basin, there has been a tension between the upper basin 

and the lower basin, a distrust, for many, many years. And that 

is evaporating as—or has evaporated, I would say, as this 2011 

flood event has occurred. Now is the time to strike, while the iron 

is hot, while people understand the value of flood control, and get 

people together and rethink how we might leverage the Missouri 

River Authorized Purposes Study, as just one example of working 

together to create a better future for the basin. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much for your testimony, and 

thank you for your service, sir. To the rest of you, thank you for 

being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate all the 

witnesses being here. And I appreciate, General McMahon, you 

being here. And I have always showed an openness, I guess, to give 

the Corps of Engineers the benefit of the doubt in many cases. But 

I have to be honest with you. There were three things that happened through this process that seriously undermine my confidence 

in the Corps’ decisionmaking process. 

The first one was when you all sent that letter out to start buying land in the shadow of this event. Having said that, it—you 

know, I wonder just exactly what the—you know, the process that 

goes into that. 

The second thing that happened was when your internal emails 

were made public, and it appeared to me that the Corps was more 

interested in your image and how it was going to be affected by 

this event than you were in managing the river. And, having said 

that, we will move on to the third one. 

The third one was your immediate decision—and that has been 

since modified—to not accept the new data and manage the river 

based on last year’s levels, which, given the fact that—you know, 

and the frustrating part is the Corps wants to come back and say, 

you know, ‘‘It is not our fault, it is not our fault, we had record 

rainfall and record snowfall,’’ which is exactly right. You didn’t 

know how much rain was coming. But you did know how much 

snowfall that you had. And, in fact, your river management office 

made that statement public, you knew how much—that you had 

record amounts of snowfall, and you thought you were going to be 

able to handle it. 

Now, moving forward with that—and we have to concentrate on 

where we are going with this—you know, my first question to you 

is are we going to be able to make repairs to all of the levees to 

some degree, to any degree, along the river? Because we have people exposed up there, entire communities that are exposed. And 

you know that. I know you know that. And homes, and everything 

else. But are we going to be able to make those repairs before this 

spring season? 

And then I have got follow-ups with that. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, Congressman Graves. We are going to get as much done as the weather permits and as funding permits. But I can tell you we are not 

104 

going to get nearly all of it done before the runoff season of 2012 

begins—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Exactly. 

General MCMAHON [continuing]. On the 1st of March. 

Mr. GRAVES. So wouldn’t it make sense, then, to immediately 

adopt the position if we are going to have lower levee levels because of the breaks—and in some cases, I don’t think any of those 

breaks—or in some cases I don’t think those breaks are going to 

be able to be repaired in any degree, just based on the ability to 

get to them—but wouldn’t it make sense immediately to go ahead 

and lower the levels, or increase the capacity? 

That doesn’t take a study to figure that out, because the flood 

level now has changed. It is no longer, you know, at the level it 

is. It is probably 10 to 20 feet lower than it was before. So wouldn’t 

it make sense to immediately adopt that and be open to that, and 

lower those levels, just based on the fact that we now have a new 

flood level, because we have exposure out there? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. So there are several things to consider in what you are suggesting here. And we have tried to do a 

very thorough risk-based analysis on the proposal. And we are taking—as we speak, we are evacuating more water than the 16.3 million acre feet. If the weather cooperates in terms of warmer temperatures, which has been to our benefit so far this fall, and less 

than forecasted runoff or precipitation in the upper basin, if that 

trend continues, we will have at least 200,000 acre feet additional 

space of storage created in the system before the freeze sets in. 

And that is based on today’s information. That will change as the 

cold sets in and as precipitation occurs. 

But there are—to evacuate more water would have made the repairs that are underway not possible, because—— 

Mr. GRAVES. I understand that. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. OK. 

Mr. GRAVES. And we have talked about that, and I understand 

the ability to get back in there and bring the water level down too 

fast. But you can still bring it down more. 

And I might suggest too the weather is not going to cooperate. 

Don’t depend on the weather cooperating, because it has not going 

to. 

The bottom line is, though, let me ask you this. What is preventing you—and I would certainly hope there will not be one single dollar spent this coming year on habitat reclamation or on anything—and we go back and forth on the figures, and you are always looking for—you keep saying you need money. But it would 

appear to me that if a single dollar is spent on any habitat reclamation or restoration or anything, that would be a colossal mismanagement of funds, because we have got serious priorities out 

there. And when it comes to getting equipment in there and doing 

this work, I don’t think that should happen. 

Now, but let me ask you this. And I know there is other issues 

involved. What is preventing you from using that money right now 

on repairs? I know you are trying to work through that, and you 

said that you are trying to move some dollars around. But that 

ability to navigate is getting less and less and less. And I will come 

back to the second round of questions, but you might be able to anVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:43 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-30-~1\71415.TXT JEAN
105 

swer that real quick. What is the one thing or two things that are 

preventing you from doing that right this minute, and finding dollars? 

I think you mentioned $86 million in habitat reclamation, there 

was another $13 million in environmental something or other. But, 

you know, what is stopping you from doing—— 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. So—— 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. It? Right now, internally. 

General MCMAHON. As you know, we are under continuing resolution authority. We don’t have an appropriation. So until that 

process unfolds, you know, we are—— 

Mr. GRAVES. I understand that. But you will have the money. We 

will eventually get the money appropriated. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. And then, of course, as you know, 

Congressman, money is appropriated with a specific purpose in 

mind. We have to go through a process of reprogramming or transferring, and notification of Congress, and those steps. So that is not 

a constraint for not doing it, but it is part of the process for doing 

it. 

And so, if and when an appropriation comes, and there are opportunities to reprogram funds from recovery program to repairs, 

I suppose we will take advantage of that opportunity. 

Mr. GRAVES. And you can do that internally. You can do that if 

you jump through all the hoops you just mentioned? 

General MCMAHON. Well, there are steps that we have to go 

through, ultimately leading to notification of the committees that 

appropriate funds, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. All right. And I will come back—I will go ahead and 

yield back at this point. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. And I will come back for a second round. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. We are going to do another round of questioning. 

Hopefully it will go a little quicker. 

General, first question. Talking about the master manual and 

how that inter-relates with your annual operating, and then on top 

of that you talked about the internal and external review and how 

that is going to play in with the 2012 operating. 

But what I am kind of wondering, you know, how is this—you 

said in your one answer to one of the other questions you talked 

about you might need to open up and revise the master manual. 

Last time that was done it took about 14 years and about $35 million, so I don’t know if that is a good thing or not. What flexibility 

do you have in the annual operating—for example, in Representative King’s bill, his proposal is to force the Corps to recalculate 

storage capacities. 

I mean can you do that now, without opening up the master 

manual? I don’t know what kind of parameters or restrictions you 

have. 

General MCMAHON. Mr. Chairman, we do have discretion to 

make short-term—read 1-year—adjustments. And, you know, for 

the right reasons, as, again, it is laid out in law in the master manual, ultimately. So, that discretion exists, and we are exercising it 

as we perceive the need to exercise it. 

106 

The annual operating plan, as contrasted with the master manual—as we said, the master manual lays out how we balance the 

eight authorized purposes. The annual operating plan is a predictive tool that envisions five different scenarios—a normal scenario, two scenarios above, and two scenarios below normal—that 

give people who use the river and the water resource that the river 

bears to navigate or to recreate or to irrigate or to generate hydropower, and so forth. 

And so, the five scenarios that are presented in the annual operating plan give people some predictability. If we have a higherthan-normal year up to, say, the 25th upper decile, then we can anticipate this level of service for navigation, as an example, this 

level of service for hydropower. 

So, that is the purpose of the annual operating—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Now—— 

General MCMAHON [continuing]. To give users some predictability. 

Mr. GIBBS. I hate to interrupt you, I just got a quick question. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Graves makes, I think, an important point. Since 

levees are damaged and not functioning, and obviously you are not 

going to get them all repaired for next spring and next summer, 

do you have the flexibility, the discretion in the operating manual, 

like he talks about, to actually say the flood level now is at this 

elevation instead of this elevation, where it was, because of the 

damage of the levees? And so you could recalculate the storage capacity, as Representative King desires to do? Do you have that discretion? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. We do have that discretion. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

General MCMAHON. There is consequences to evacuating additional water—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I understand that. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. But if flood control is the top priority, I know the 

other things are good too, you have got to balance, and that is the 

challenge—— 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. And I think that is the history of this 

watershed. 

General MCMAHON. So I would just like to add that space in the 

upper reservoir system doesn’t guarantee that we will preclude 

flooding downstream. And as we saw in 2010 and previous years, 

we had lots of rain below the last reservoir that caused a lot of inflow from the tributaries. Now, we held water back in the upper 

reservoir system so that water would drain out of the tributaries 

and out through the main stem. But that is an example of one year 

and the next year vary. 

And so, if we were to create—pick a number—4.6 million additional acre feet in the upper system, that wouldn’t necessarily preclude the flooding that occurred in 2010, as an example. 

So, we don’t want to create false expectations about creating 

more space as a panacea that will preclude the flooding that occurred in 2010, as an example. 

107 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, OK. 

General MCMAHON. So there is consequences, and we have got 

to think holistically about the whole system. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Ms. Kunkel, I want to ask you a question. In 

your testimony you talk about the—stated that Corps of Engineers 

operating mitigation lands—erroneously and negatively impact 

flood control. Do you believe—who is making the decisions on these 

lands you are talking about in your county? Is it the Corps? Is it 

the fish and wildlife services? Who is driving that, those policies? 

Ms. KUNKEL. Well, the Corps of Engineers owns the ground. And 

some of it is under management of Missouri Department of Conservation for the wetland pieces. There—and that is just a partnership that the Corps works out through varying States. DNR has it 

in Iowa, MDC has it in Missouri. So that is a normal partnership 

to manage those areas locally. 

But our issue with that is that we have non-Federal levees in 

those areas. So the levees are built to roughly a 25-year standard. 

They are not as wide at the base. They are not as tall. They don’t 

have hard anodized roads on top of them that help protect them 

from overtopping, and they are not set back away from the channel, primarily. So in those areas where land reclamation has been 

done between the levee and the channel, we are seeing a wetland 

and a pallid sturgeon chute right up next to a substructure levee 

that just doesn’t have the ability to hold off a high water flow. 

So, as much as our local levee district makes attempts to stay up 

to speed with what is happening in that levee, it is not a PickSloan-designed Federal levee. And so it is just set up to fail when 

we have a situation where the water is this high, and it is running 

directly at the levee. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Waters, did you have any comment on that, or— 

OK. 

Mr. WATERS. Excuse me. I would just add that we have seen 

areas this year where these mitigation projects have, we feel, increased the damage and maybe caused levees to overtop sooner 

than they would have. So I think there is a need to look at these 

mitigation projects, especially where they are right up next to the 

levee, like she is talking about. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I want to start with just, for the 

record, to point out—and General, I know you are very aware of 

this, but from fiscal year 2010 to 2011 to 2012, funding overall for 

the Corps has gone down each year. Correct? So I just wanted to 

point that out. And secondly, although we authorized $25 million for the Mis- souri River study, only about $7 million of that has been provided. 

And you are really at—you are really stuck right now, in terms of 

being able to complete that. Is that correct? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And so, it seems to me the correct way to go 

about this is to—let’s finish the study that—it needs to be deliberate and thorough. And it needs to consider the best science and 

the most recent data. And in order to complete that—just briefly, 

that study being completed, how useful a tool is that going to be, 

going forward? 

108 

General MCMAHON. Well, I think the work that has been done 

to date with the $7 million, we have collected data, we have engaged with the public to understand, you know, the various stakes 

and stakeholders. We have done some modeling. All that work is 

on the shelf and still legitimately can be applied to the successful 

conclusion of the study. 

Having said that, we might want to step back from the way the 

study was originally conceived and scoped, and recast it in the context of the 2011 flooding event, and put an emphasis on making 

this study relevant to making, for example, flood control the number one priority. So there is probably some adjustment we could 

and should make to the existing study, the way it is scoped, to 

shape it so that it is more relevant to the questions at hand, and 

gives us the kind of set of recommendations that would be useful 

for consideration by the Congress to then subsequently appropriate 

for. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I appreciate that, and I would ask for your ideas 

on ways that that can be better focused and better inclusive of this 

current data, so we ultimately can get that study done in the best 

way possible. So that would be very useful. 

Finally, to wrap up my time, let’s fast forward a few years. Let’s 

pretend that we are all here. And instead of having an excess 

water event, we are here and it is a drought. We have had historic 

drought, OK? 

And we will start with the general and I want to go down the 

line and talk about how we would be having this same conversation. And if we make flooding the top priority, then how are we incorporating other priorities in different situations, which we all 

know are likely to happen in the future. So, General, let’s start 

with you and go down the line and talk about how we incorporate 

a drought scenario into these conversations. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. That is an excellent question. And 

of course, 2007 is when the last drought—just 4 years ago—concluded, and we came out of it with successive bountiful years of 

rain. And it is very feasible to imagine that we, in the next 5, 10 

years or sooner, would be back in a drought cycle. So that is exactly the point of going at this with a very—I won’t say slow, but 

deliberate pace, to make sure that we are thinking broadly, deeply, 

long-term about all of this, and to understand impacts to other 

seven authorized purposes by elevating flood control, as an example. 

There are consequences. Because, as you know, Congressman, 

flood control requires empty space. All the other seven authorized 

purposes require water stored in the system to be flowed on a metered pace to serve those purposes. So that tension is inherent in 

this problem set, and needs to be addressed as we go forth, very 

deliberately. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Waters? 

Mr. WATERS. Well, I guess my first thought is the reservoirs 

were built for flood control. And that is the way—that is—should 

be the primary purpose. 

The other thought is, you know, I don’t know what type of 

drought it would take to create the type of damage we have seen 

this year from flooding. I don’t know if it is possible that a drought 

109 

could create the kind of damage that we have seen from this year’s 

flooding. Certainly the land would be put back into production the 

next year much more quickly. 

So, droughts are devastating, yes. We are in a drought this year. 

We have seen droughts. But they are not as devastating as a flood 

is. And so I think that is the reason to keep flood control foremost 

in mind. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Lawrence? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, Congressman. I think there is—you know, 

obviously, there is a lot of different various uses that are very important to the different States. In South Dakota, obviously, recreation is one of the more important ones, because of the amount of 

tax dollars that are brought in through tourism to the State, and 

that is a very large impact to the State of South Dakota. 

There is also another impact, and that is through the Western 

Area Power Administration during a drought. The only rate payer 

on the whole system is the customers that get the public power 

from WAPA. And when we go through droughts, those customers 

have to pay additional amounts of money for their power. And they 

are the lone rate payer on the system. So there are impacts to 

them. 

The one thing I would like to recommend is that—obviously, we 

have had a very impactful event this last year. It is still stinging 

and we are all hurting. I would suggest that we don’t make a kneejerk reaction and swing too far the other direction, and that we 

need to have a measured response, as the general has recommended, and that we go through some things. There may be 

some interim, you know, medium ground, if you will, that we could 

go to, as far as additional storage, and create some additional storage for flooding, but not maybe go—you know, swing the pendulum 

completely to the other end, and drain the reservoirs just for that 

purpose. 

So I think there is a happy balance, there is a happy medium, 

and we need to try to approach that cautiously, so that we don’t 

swing the pendulum too far to the other direction and have, you 

know, unintended consequences. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Great. And Ms. Kunkel? 

Ms. KUNKEL. Well, I certainly see the benefits of water quality 

and the ability to irrigate and to be able to have a regular control 

of the reservoir system. 

But I would echo Tom Waters’s remarks that in 1944, when this 

system was envisioned, it was intended to control the snowmelt 

and the rain runoff. That was the original purpose of the reservoir 

systems above the dams. And I think we need to continue to see 

that that original vision has worked very well until the last change 

to the master manual. And at the last induction of the changes of 

the master manual we began seeing different operational procedures. And at that time we have begun seeing successive flooding 

and problems in the lower basin. 

So, in my particular area, I have a very rural population, a couple of small towns. The river, even in a drought situation, runs 

usually a couple of feet deep. So it is not something that is terribly 

of concern for me and the communities in my county. But I recognize a much larger regional and national impact of having those 

110 

reservoirs too low. But I think this is the time we have got to be 

having an open mind and looking at is there ability to have additional storage in those lakes, as Congressman King is looking for 

us to do. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Great. And Mr. Oswald? 

Mr. OSWALD. Well, when I was young and full of ginger, I worked 

for our levee district for about 15 years. I was a caretaker, and I 

even took over the responsibility of mowing 75 miles of levee each 

year. Part of my job was working with the Corps of Engineers on 

their annual inspection of Atchison County Levee District Number 

One. 

I became quite friendly with one of those Corps representatives. 

He was an artillery officer in World War II and he came back home 

after the war and got his engineering degree and then went to 

work with the Corps of Engineers on the Missouri River, stabilizing 

the channel, building the levees. He believed in his mission. And 

his mission was flood control and navigation. And he was happy 

that recreation was going to be a side benefit of those two things. 

So, things have changed. Fewer people live in the country, more 

people live in the city. There is different demand for things. But 

we have to acknowledge that there is climate variation, and that 

variation has to be compensated for in those reservoirs and on that 

river. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Great. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going back to—you 

know, and there is—what we are trying to do is make—I am trying 

to make your job easier, General. If we make flood control the number one priority, then that solves a lot of your priority issues. And 

if down the road we have a drought, then flood control is obviously 

not going to be an issue, and it doesn’t have to be a priority. We 

are just trying to make sure it is the number one priority consideration. And it doesn’t have to be considered if there is a drought. 

But I want to go back to the exposure that we have right now. 

And I don’t expect you to know—you may know what—if the levees 

are all intact, let’s say Rulo, or at Brownville, you know. Do you 

know what the difference between if the levees are intact—and I 

imagine Kathy does, she can probably tell me. In fact, tell me 

what—Kathy, we will just go to you, because I know that you 

know. If the levees are intact, what is the flood level? And right 

now what is the flood level with the levees open? 

Ms. KUNKEL. The Rulo, Nebraska, gauge flood level is 17-foot at 

this point in time. At 19-foot the holes are taking on water out into 

my flood plain. 

Mr. GRAVES. OK. So at 19 foot, water starts running out. 

Ms. KUNKEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. OK. What were they with the—— 

Ms. KUNKEL. Were 24 foot—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Twenty-four foot—— 

Ms. KUNKEL [continuing]. Was the projected level for a 25-year 

flood plain—— 

Mr. GRAVES. OK. Is that close? I mean, General, is that—do you 

agree with that? Whatever—what I am trying to get at is let’s say 

it is 10 feet or 20 feet. I don’t know what it is. But right now we 

111 

have exposure out there, and we are not going to be able to fix 

that. And we keep talking about going slow, being deliberate with 

these decisions, not jumping to conclusions, not going too far, don’t 

let Congress do something that is going to hamstring us in the future. But what we are talking about is this year, right now. We 

have got people out there that are exposed. And the flood level is 

lower than it is going to be, because we are not going to get those 

repairs done. 

Is it in your capacity, the Corps’ capacity, can you make that determination to go ahead and lower the level, you know, in case the 

weather doesn’t cooperate, whatever the case, can you go ahead 

and lower that level in expectation that flooding is going to occur 

much, much quicker because we don’t have openings? Can you guys 

do that now, going through—and you talk about the process, procedure, notifying the committees, all that kind of stuff—can you do 

that? 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. We have the discretion to do that. 

But time is running out on us, because the river is going to freeze 

in the northern upper reaches. That is going to limit the amount 

of water that can be evacuated from those upper reservoirs. 

So, you know, the clock has been ticking on us. And you know, 

we made this call, and we are making adjustments to this call back 

at the end of July. But it was fundamentally premised on getting 

the water off the flood plain so people, farmers, businessmen could 

get back into their homes and start repairs, much like the Corps 

needs to do to the levees. 

And sir, I would add that there is nothing more important than 

getting the levees repaired, whether to a 25-year level of protection 

or all the way up to its full pre-flood—there is nothing more important on our priority list than to do that in anticipation of the 2012 

runoff season. So that is why we are moving money around, and 

we have got contracts in place. And you know, we are shoveling 

dirt out there at L550 and 575. 

There is many more places where we got to get on with it, 

but—— 

Mr. GRAVES. And I am glad. And I know you guys, your number 

one priority is that. I do have a quick comment, though, because 

we keep talking about getting that water off so people can get back 

in their homes and make repairs. I will be honest with you. If you 

had a house in the flood plain right now, would you make repairs 

to it? 

General MCMAHON. Maybe not. It depends on where it was and, 

you know—— 

Mr. GRAVES. I wouldn’t spend the money. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir—— 

Mr. GRAVES. I would continue to live—and we got people—— 

General MCMAHON. Well, I am with you. I mean it—— 

Mr. GRAVES. We got people living in Atchison County with relatives and in hotels and whatever they got to do. Now their house 

is open right now, and some of them are back there. But I am not 

so sure I would spend a whole lot of money doing any repairs to 

anything, as long as I had exposure. 

Now, I am encouraged by the fact that you all can do all of this 

internally. I am very concerned about the hamstrings with the EnVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:43 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-30-~1\71415.TXT JEAN
112 

dangered Species Act, which is a whole other issue. I would hope 

people would allow for the fact that we have some serious issues 

out there with people, communities, businesses, you name it, and 

we want to be able to take care of that and be able to move that 

money. 

And I am encouraged, too, because—and you said you can do 

that, if you jump through all the hoops you can move that money 

over. And we need to find you some more money, but you can move 

that money over for repair. And so I am going to be looking to the 

Corps, and my constituents are going to be looking to the Corps to 

get some of this stuff done, and back up the fact that you are making levee repair that number one issue. 

We all—you know, I am not going to be—I don’t expect—it is just 

not—we can’t get all the levees repaired. But I would expect you 

all to do everything within your power to lower the level of those 

reservoirs, just as much as you can, within reason. And I understand the hydrology and what is going on with doing it too fast, 

also. But we have got to get those water levels lowered, because we 

have got people exposed. And that flood level is much lower than 

it was before. 

And before I finish up, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I do 

want to clear up. Because we have heard—and I have heard this 

from other people, and I heard this today in the committee about 

the—that the money that is expended on environmental issues and 

endangered species had nothing to do with this, and that we 

shouldn’t be attacking other priorities and all. 

And Ms. Kunkel, I want you to explain to me some of the things 

that have been done to the river in regards to shallow water habitat, that sort of thing, and what effect that had on those levee 

breaks. 

Ms. KUNKEL. All right. From the north end of my county to the 

south there are 52 miles of levee. There are several mitigation sites 

encompassing 8,000 acres. Those areas have been purchased. The 

dikes have been notched that were used originally to scour the 

river channel that kept a deep, navigable channel in my area. By 

notching all of the dikes, it allows sand siltation to fill in as sand 

bars behind the notches. It also allows for a lower, slower flow 

river and siltation. 

We know now at the Rulo river gauge we cannot carry the volume or the height of water that we were able to in 1993, because 

the river channel has widened just above it in Rush Bottoms mitigation area, and it allows the river to spread and drop its silt load. 

So we don’t have a good navigable channel, and we have a wider, 

low-flow river that tends to spread itself more efficiently. 

We have pallid sturgeon chutes, which is an area where the 

Corps of Engineers contracted to push dirt off into the river to create these low-flow channel areas. Those chutes are essentially just 

multi-fingerlets of the original channel that allow the water to meander throughout the flood plain area. But in many cases, as the 

water picked up speed and volume, it went into those chutes and 

directed itself directly at the levees, creating slides and scour holes 

on the river side of the levees, or eventually causing the entire 

levee substructure to fail. Also created sand boils on the exterior 

portion. 

113 

Those are the ongoing issues. And some of those areas we have 

60-foot holes now that encompass over 4 acres. That is the equivalent of about 31⁄2 to 4 football fields. They are 60- to 80-foot deep. 

I have 15 of those in my county. So we are going to have to realign 

the levee at this point. You cannot fix that. The levee now has to 

come back and be put out as a realignment away from those areas, 

rendering those farmers and their land that was near those areas 

completely useless. Does that explain your—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to bash this 

issue any more, but I do want to say I look forward to continuing 

to work with the Corps, General, in the future. I would encourage 

you all to be less concerned about your image and be a little more 

responsible with your emails, because that really aggravated me 

when I saw it. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to 

take part in this. 

Mr. GIBBS. Part of our last representative’s question—I just got 

a quick question for the general. 

During a flood event, that takes priority over anything else like 

the Endangered Species Act or anything, and you do things. But 

obviously, not during a flood event—the Endangered Species Act, 

for example, comes into play and could create challenges. Is that 

what I am hearing? Is that correct? 

General MCMAHON. During a flood event, flood control is preeminent, without a doubt. Endangered Species Act and Clean 

Water Act and other—NEPA is another environmental law—are 

the laws of the land. And so, you know, we are compliant with the 

laws of the land. 

And the Missouri River recovery program is a means to an end 

for us to meet our statutory requirements under ESA, Clean Water 

Act, NEPA, to do the right thing in accordance with the law of the 

land. And it allows, then, those eight authorized purposes to unfold 

to the benefit of the people in the basin. So it is, again, part of the 

delicate balance that is the Missouri River Basin. And we are not 

going to get around the need to comply with the law. 

Mr. GIBBS. I just wanted to be clear on that. 

General MCMAHON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, General. And on that point, in hearing— 

because I am the ranking member, subcommittee on water and 

power. So we have had many hearings over the issue of drought 

and of the rivers and dams, et cetera. 

And in California we have had many farmers and businesses testify. And one of the things that was brought to our attention is that 

many of the farmers in areas that are very productive indicate to 

us that they need to have that ecological balance, that they need 

those estuaries, those wetlands to be able to have the filtering of 

the water that they use for farming. 

So, to me—and you are right, this is the law of the land, and it 

also was put there for a purpose. Balancing that is the question, 

and not being too far on either side. And that is just a commentary 

that past experience has taught me. 

General, the impact on the non-Federal levees, how does that affect your ability to mitigate your delivery? 

114 

General MCMAHON. We have an obligation under Public Law 84– 

99 to repair non-Federal levees that are in the rehabilitation inspection program. And the difference between a non-Federal levee 

and a Federal levee is that non-Federal levee repairs are costshared with the local sponsor. And that—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, what is the cost share percentage? 

General MCMAHON. I think it is 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal—OK, I am sorry, 80/20. I stand corrected. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 80/20. Yet the taxpayer is also paying for 

those repairs, correct? Who benefits from that? And how are we 

going to do a more equitable balance? 

And I understand some of these areas do not have the ability, financially, to meet with these. But let’s understand that is also the 

rest of the United States paying for those taxes that pay for the 

repair of those levees, that 80 percent. So to me that is something 

that—I am not sure whether that will share in the equation, but 

certainly it brings to light how dependent we are on the funding 

to be able to mitigate everybody’s concerns. 

So, while we may be casting aspersions on the Endangered Species Act, certainly—and as I tell people, we too are a species. When 

will be our turn? 

So, going on to another question. Mr. Lawrence, is there a more 

appropriate way to communicate with the basin? How can we suggest, inform, educate, and reach out to those folks? If they were 

faced with very quick updated analysis that they didn’t have the 

time to really reach out, what would be the best way to be able to 

reach out? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I 

think that the military already has threat system in place. And if 

you had something similar to that on the Missouri River—in other 

words, threat condition alpha, there is nothing imminent, there is 

nothing that is going to happen in the immediate future, we are 

in good condition, no issues, then you start going on down through 

the different threat conditions, and then you come up with one that 

is going to say this is something that is dangerous, something is 

going to happen, and that would be something that everybody could 

understand fairly easily, it works very well in the military, and it 

is something that I think that would work very well—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. General? 

Mr. LAWRENCE [continuing]. Communicate with the public. 

General MCMAHON. I am familiar with the system. And you 

know, I think with any system, Congresswoman, it depends on how 

much credibility is has with the people that it serves, and how 

widely it is used. 

And so, you know—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you got an education to do—— 

General MCMAHON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. The populace. And understanding 

that Mother Nature is not going to wait for us to be ready for anything, she is going to throw things that we—like Katrina, like some 

of the fires in California, things that—the drought conditions. 

And then, of course, there is WAPA, which I deal with. And the 

fact that if we go into a drought condition there won’t be enough 

115 

water to turn the turbines to make the electricity which will cause 

rolling blackouts and non-delivery of electricity to farms and other 

cities. So that is a very, very critical issue to me, and one that I 

will continue to move forward on. 

Ms. Kunkel, what would be—what would have been, in your estimation, the impact, had the Corps not been able to do what they 

did in helping? 

Ms. KUNKEL. I appreciate the question. And I do want to clarify 

that my county has flooded 4 out of the last 5 years. So when I am 

speaking to you all about flooding conditions and the Endangered 

Species Act roles and the other elements of land purchase and mitigation, I am not specifically speaking about the Corps’ activities in 

this singular flood event. 

And so, because of that nature, ma’am, we recognize in the county that we have got to do better. You know, we have got to come 

to a compromise with the Corps of Engineers, and we have got to 

look at developing a Federal levee system from north to south. I 

only have it in about 18 miles of the county, and those levees did 

not breach. Those Federal levees held. They have significant damage, but they did hold. 

And so, we need to look at a cooperative effort locally to come together and put my varying small non-Federal levee districts together into a larger Federal district, with some of the cost share 

burden on the local people to recognize that they have got to pay 

taxes into that system to maintain it and keep it up and keep it 

moving forward. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I did notice that you were testifying that 

some of the non-Federal levees were not as wide or as deep. And 

so, consequently, they were more prone to breaching. 

Ms. KUNKEL. Absolutely. And we have seen breaches in May of 

2007, June of 2008. We had an early flood in April of 2009, and 

June and July of 2010, and then May through the fall of this—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What would have, in your estimate, been the 

cost had the Army Corps not been able to work as effectively as 

they did? 

Ms. KUNKEL. The cost in our county? Well, I know that they 

spent over $3 million maintaining L497 for sand boils. In addition, 

about $4 million maintaining—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, I am talking total overall cost. 

Ms. KUNKEL. Total overall in the county? Those are the two levees that we saw the Corps working on this year, so I would anticipate about a $7 million impact and loss of those levees, had they 

not have come forward and worked on those. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And thank you, again, for being 

here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to thank the panelists for your perseverance, 

being here. I think this has been helpful. I think it is always good 

to have a good communication discussion, because we all want to 

do the right thing and protect lives and property. And I commend 

the work you do. 

And I know that General McMahon has talked about they have 

learned some things too, that everybody has learned from this 

event. And communication is a big part of that. And I think we 

116 

move forward—we can work to make the best policy and help get 

the—get our goals achieved and protect lives and property. 

So, that concludes this hearing. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

117 


Insert offset folio 70 here 71415.070
118 


Insert offset folio 71 here 71415.071
119 


Insert offset folio 72 here 71415.072
120 


Insert offset folio 73 here 71415.073
121 


Insert offset folio 74 here 71415.074
122 


Insert offset folio 75 here 71415.075
123 


Insert offset folio 76 here 71415.076
124 


Insert offset folio 77 here 71415.077
125 


Insert offset folio 78 here 71415.078
126 


Insert offset folio 79 here 71415.079
127 


Insert offset folio 80 here 71415.080
128 


Insert offset folio 81 here 71415.081
129 


Insert offset folio 82 here 71415.082
130 


Insert offset folio 83 here 71415.083
131 


Insert offset folio 84 here 71415.084
132 


Insert offset folio 85 here 71415.085
133 


Insert offset folio 86 here 71415.086
134 


Insert offset folio 87 here 71415.087
135 


Insert offset folio 88 here 71415.088
136 


Insert offset folio 89 here 71415.089
137 


Insert offset folio 90 here 71415.090
138 


Insert offset folio 91 here 71415.091
139 


Insert offset folio 92 here 71415.092
140 


Insert offset folio 93 here 71415.093
141 


Insert offset folio 94 here 71415.094
142 


Insert offset folio 95 here 71415.095
143 


Insert offset folio 96 here 71415.096
144 


Insert offset folio 97 here 71415.097
145 


Insert offset folio 98 here 71415.098
146 


Insert offset folio 99 here 71415.099
147 


Insert offset folio 100 here 71415.100
148 


Insert offset folio 101 here 71415.101
149 


Insert offset folio 102 here 71415.102
150 


Insert offset folio 103 here 71415.103
151 


Insert offset folio 104 here 71415.104
152 


Insert offset folio 105 here 71415.105
153 


Insert offset folio 106 here 71415.106
154 


Insert offset folio 107 here 71415.107
155 


Insert offset folio 108 here 71415.108
156 


Insert offset folio 109 here 71415.109
157 


Insert offset folio 110 here 71415.110
158 


Insert offset folio 111 here 71415.111
159 


Insert offset folio 112 here 71415.112
160 


Insert offset folio 113 here 71415.113
161 


Insert offset folio 114 here 71415.114
162 


Insert offset folio 115 here 71415.115
163 


Insert offset folio 116 here 71415.116
164 


Insert offset folio 117 here 71415.117
165 


Insert offset folio 118 here 71415.118
166 


Insert offset folio 119 here 71415.119
167 


Insert offset folio 120 here 71415.120
168 


Insert offset folio 121 here 71415.121
169 


Insert offset folio 122 here 71415.122
170 


Insert offset folio 123 here 71415.123
171 


Insert offset folio 124 here 71415.124
172 


Insert offset folio 125 here 71415.125
173 


Insert offset folio 126 here 71415.126
174 


Insert offset folio 127 here 71415.127
175 


Insert offset folio 128 here 71415.128
176 


Insert offset folio 129 here 71415.129
177 


Insert offset folio 130 here 71415.130
178 


Insert offset folio 131 here 71415.131
179 


Insert offset folio 132 here 71415.132
180 


Insert offset folio 133 here 71415.133
181 


Insert offset folio 134 here 71415.134
182 


Insert offset folio 135 here 71415.135
183 


Insert offset folio 136 here 71415.136
184 


Insert offset folio 137 here 71415.137
185 


Insert offset folio 138 here 71415.138
186 


Insert offset folio 139 here 71415.139
187 


Insert offset folio 140 here 71415.140
188 


Insert offset folio 141 here 71415.141
189 


Insert offset folio 142 here 71415.142
190 


Insert offset folio 143 here 71415.143
191 


Insert offset folio 144 here 71415.144
192 


Insert offset folio 145 here 71415.145
193 


Insert offset folio 146 here 71415.146
194 


Insert offset folio 147 here 71415.147
195 


Insert offset folio 148 here 71415.148
196 


Insert offset folio 149 here 71415.149
197 


Insert offset folio 150 here 71415.150
198 


Insert offset folio 151 here 71415.151
199 


Insert offset folio 152 here 71415.152
200 


Insert offset folio 153 here 71415.153
201 


Insert offset folio 154 here 71415.154
202 


Insert offset folio 155 here 71415.155
203 


Insert offset folio 156 here 71415.156
204 


Insert offset folio 157 here 71415.157
205 


Insert offset folio 158 here 71415.158
206 


Insert offset folio 159 here 71415.159
207 


Insert offset folio 160 here 71415.160
208 


Insert offset folio 161 here 71415.161
209 


Insert offset folio 162 here 71415.162
210 


Insert offset folio 163 here 71415.163
211 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 164 here 71415.164