Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
National Water Resources
Challenges Facing the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a long history of planning
and managing important aspects of the nation’s water resources, includ -
ing flood hazards, commercial navigation, coastal protection, and more
recently, ecosystem protection and restoration. At the direction of the
U.S. Congress, the Corps of Engineers has constructed, and today oper-
ates and maintains, multi-purpose dams, navigation channels, and levees
in all fifty U.S. states. The Corps also plays key roles in port and harbor
maintenance and in dredging and waterways management.
For much of its history, the Corps has enjoyed considerable author-
ity and public confidence. Corps of Engineers dams, locks, navigation
channels, levees, and other infrastructure have conferred many benefits
to many parties and the nation. The Corps also has been a recognized
leader in hydrologic and hydraulic engineering theory and practice, both
nationally and around the world.
Over the years, changes in Corps decision-making authority, fed -
eral budgetary priorities, and shifts in national water planning goals
have affected the agency’s water resources management program. Fed -
eral environmental legislation, emerging demands for protection and
restoration of aquatic ecosystems, declining levels of federal investments
in civil works infrastructure, devolving authority, and a need to provide
benefits for an expanding range of constituents and sectors have increased
the complexity and controversies surrounding the operational decisions,
planning studies, and water resources work of the Corps. The expertise
5
OCR for page 6
6 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
and decision making of the Corps has been challenged in many instances
and some of the public confidence the agency enjoyed in an earlier era
has eroded.
This report is from the National Research Council (NRC) Committee
on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science, Engineering, and
Planning (see Appendix C for a listing of and biographical information on
committee members). The committee was established in late 2009 with
sponsorship from the Corps of Engineers. The committee’s mandate is
to provide strategic advice on emerging water resources issues and chal-
lenges (see Box 1 for this committee’s full statement of task). This initial
5-year project calls for annual reports. This is the first report in that series.
The Corps of Engineers is an agency within the U.S. Department
of Defense and has both civilian and military responsibilities. Under
the Corps civil works program and at the direction of Congress, the
Corps plans, constructs, operates, and maintains a wide range of water
resources projects. The Corps’ military program provides engineering,
construction, and environmental management services for Department
of Defense agencies (Carter and Cody, 2006). This report focuses on the
BOX 1
Statement of Task
Committee on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water
Resources Science, Engineering, and Planning
This committee will provide advice to the Corps of Engineers on a range of
scientific, engineering, and water resources planning issues through periodic re-
ports. This committee’s first report will identify emerging national water resources
challenges and their implications for Corps of Engineers strategies and programs.
The statements of task for subsequent reports will be determined through discus-
sions between the committee and the Corps, and will be subject to approval of the
NRC Governing Board’s Executive Committee.
Through its reports, the committee will provide advice to the Corps on agency
practices that are valid or that should be revised, and help the Corps anticipate
and prepare for emerging water resources planning challenges. Meetings between
this committee and the Corps will allow for the identification of important and
emerging water resources planning and policy issues of high priority to the agency
and upon which they are seeking external advice. In addition to speaking with the
Corps of Engineers, the committee often will engage invited speakers from other
federal agencies, U.S. congressional staff, state governments, the private sector,
and relevant stakeholders. The committee also may serve as a forum for occasional
workshops on thematic issues, such as flood risk management, sustainable river
system planning, hydroecosystem restoration, or implications to water manage-
ment of climate change and variability.
OCR for page 7
7
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
Corps of Engineers’ water resources activities within its civil works mis -
sion. Within the civil works program, this report focuses on Corps water
resources and management, and Corps infrastructure and activities that
affect river and coastal hydrology and hydraulics. It does not investigate
or comment upon the Corps’ regulatory activities within its civil works
program, as those Corps activities are less related to planning and more
related to regulating actions and impacts of other entities. The report
also does not investigate Corps military engineering responsibilities and
activities.
As explained in Box 1, this committee’s first report focuses on iden -
tifying “emerging national water resources challenges and their impli-
cations for Corps of Engineers strategies and programs.” This report
addresses several overarching water resources planning issues as they
relate to the Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that these subsequent
reports will explore specific Corps of Engineers program areas, special
initiatives, and reports, and thus will investigate scientific and engineer-
ing issues in greater detail. Topics for the committee’s subsequent reports
are not yet determined. As this project proceeds, future statements of task
for this committee will be negotiated based on discussions between the
Corps and the NRC regarding timely and appropriate topics. Preliminary
discussions regarding the committee’s second report point to a prospect of
a review of Corps of Engineers flood risk management programs.
This report was prepared on the basis of two open public meetings,
which included presentations from several Corps of Engineers staff and
other invited speakers, and a third, closed meeting at which the commit -
tee discussed its draft report. The committee has reviewed documents
provided by the Corps and various stakeholders prior to and during the
public meetings, and has reviewed other pertinent information, including
a number of previous NRC reports on U.S. water resources issues and the
activities of the Corps. Given the long-term nature of this project, as well
as the many factors that affect Corps of Engineers policies and actions,
this committee’s first report focuses on elucidation of the decision-making
context in which the Corps operates. It offers several observations and
findings about the conditions that affect and constrain the Corps of Engi -
neers, but no recommendations. This report will serve as a foundational
document that the committee will refer to and build upon in subsequent
reports.
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY WATER RESOURCES
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The nature of the Corps of Engineers water resources program and
its water projects have changed greatly over the past 50 years. The thrust
OCR for page 8
8 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
of hydrologic engineering activities across the nation has moved from an
earlier era of building civil works infrastructure to a greater emphasis
today on infrastructure maintenance and on restoring aquatic ecosystem
functions and services in significantly altered hydro-systems. Dams have
been constructed for flood control and/or navigation enhancement on
most of the major rivers and many of their tributaries, and the flows and
physical characteristics of nearly every major U.S. river are heavily con -
trolled. Many of the nation’s largest dams and related hydropower, navi-
gation, and water supply systems were constructed in the mid-twentieth
century by the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In
the 1930s, for example, Hoover Dam (Reclamation) on the Colorado River,
Fort Peck Dam (Corps) on the Missouri River in Montana, and many of
the navigation locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River (Corps)
and the Ohio River (Corps) were constructed. In the 1940s, Grand Coulee
Dam (Reclamation) on the Columbia River and the Shasta Dam (Reclama-
tion) on the Sacramento River were completed. The 1950s and 1960s saw
the construction of five major mainstem dams across the Missouri River
(Corps), along with Glen Canyon Dam (Reclamation) on the Colorado
River. The Corps of Engineers has constructed about 800 dams across
the nation for a combination of flood control, hydropower production,
navigation enhancement, and water supply purposes (see Appendix B).
In addition, the Corps operates and maintains 12,000 miles of commercial
inland channels, and maintains over 900 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland
harbors. The Corps also has constructed or operates nearly 14,000 miles
of levees in the federal levee system (USACE, 2011a).
The Corps of Engineers continues to play important roles in flood
risk reduction, commercial navigation, and more recently, ecosystem res -
toration across the nation and in most of the nation’s major riverine,
lacustrian, and coastal systems. The Corps, for example, is responsible
for developing operating plans for the Missouri River mainstem dam
and reservoir system, operations on the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway system, and is a leading partner in restoration activities in
Florida’s Greater Everglades ecosystem. The thrust of Corps activities
in these, and other, hydrologic and aquatic systems has shifted. Today
there is less construction of large civil works projects but the operations
and maintenance (O&M) functions for all existing infrastructure remains.
These O&M functions today include working with stakeholders in setting
reservoir release schedules and navigation pool elevations, ecosystem
restoration, and endangered species protection.
The Corps also is challenged to operate in a setting of changing
hydrologic realities and demands. For example, increasing urban water
demands in some regions of the country, such as in the greater Atlanta
metropolitan area, are stressing existing water supplies. At an aggregate
OCR for page 9
9
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
national level, however, total water withdrawals have leveled off, and
total water withdrawals in 2005 were “slightly less than the estimate for
2000, and about 5 percent less than total withdrawals in the peak year
of 1980” (Kenny et al., 2009). The Corps also must cope with hydrologic
variations and extremes, owing to changes in land use, climate param -
eters, or some combination. The concept of hydrologic “nonstationarity”
(Milly et al., 2008) is prompting reconsideration of some basic tenets of
hydrologic analysis and hydraulic engineering, which will affect Corps
planning and operations going forward. Potential impacts of sea level
rise (Solomon et al., 2007) on Corps infrastructure and coastal ecosys-
tems present important planning and operational issues. Changing water
withdrawal patterns and shifting climate and hydrologic regimes are
among many national water resources challenges facing the Corps of
Engineers and other federal, state, and local entities with water planning
and management responsibilities. (Table 1 provides a list of national water
resources planning challenges identified by this committee; also see NRC,
2010, for a similar list.)
In response to these many water planning challenges, the Corps of
Engineers has been adjusting its priorities and activities to reflect new
objectives and priorities for the use of water resource systems. The Corps’
traditional responsibilities were in the areas of navigation enhancement
and flood risk reduction. Corps of Engineers multi-purpose dams and
TABLE 1 National Water Resources Challenges
• I
ntegrating floodplain management, risk management, public safety, and
ecosystem values;
• A
ging water control infrastructure and port and inland navigation facilities;
• U
rban stormwater management and water supply;
• W
atershed restoration;
• Q
uantifying and leveraging ecosystem services;
• A
ccommodating diverse stakeholder preferences in operational decisions;
• I
ntegrating social and cultural values into technical aspects of water project
decision making;
• D
efining tolerable risk for water resource projects;
• P
opulation and economic growth and increasing water demands;
• I
ncreasing demand for water resource projects with diminishing ability to fund
those projects;
• R
eallocating water resources to new uses, including ecosystem restoration;
• M
itigating nonpoint source discharges to improve water quality;
• P
lanning for extreme climate events and changing climate conditions
(nonstationarity);
• P
rotection of endangered species while simultaneously meeting demands of
traditional water users.
OCR for page 10
10 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
water projects also provided hydropower, water supplies, and recre-
ational benefits. In the mid-1990s, the Congress authorized the Corps to
construct projects for ecosystem restoration goals. Over time the demands
from the Corps and its water resources projects have broadened, and the
Corps often has been expected—and challenged—to provide benefits to
both traditional and newer project beneficiaries.
The Corps of Engineers, and the nation, today are constructing fewer
civil works projects for water development than during the 1950s and
1960s. The Corps in many instances is working to provide a wider suite
of benefits with existing water resources infrastructure. The Corps often
is working in heavily altered ecosystems with major impoundments and
extensive navigation channels, and many of their projects entail hydro -
logic and related adjustments (e.g., sediment transport and deposition
processes) to these systems and a re-allocation of water-related benefits.
In an earlier era of national water development, Corps of Engineers
civil works projects focused on construction of dam, levees, navigation
channels, and other infrastructure. Over time, Congress has greatly
broadened the Corps’ work program and responsibilities. Future Corps
water resources activities will be less dedicated to construction of major
new civil works, and more heavily focused on (1) operating, maintain -
ing, rehabilitating, and upgrading existing infrastructure, (2) re-allo -
cating reservoir storage and releases among changing water resources
demands and users, and (3) providing some degree of ecosystem res -
toration and ecological services in heavily altered riparian and aquatic
ecosystems.
NATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENTS
The nation has made considerable investments in water resources
infrastructure in the form of dams, locks, levees, navigation channels,
shoreline protection, and port and harbor facilities. As the extent of this
infrastructure has grown, investment needs and priorities naturally have
shifted from an emphasis on constructing new infrastructure, to oper-
ating, maintaining, and upgrading existing infrastructure. At the same
time, demands for new and replacement infrastructure will continue. The
investments that will be required to maintain and upgrade this infrastruc -
ture are considerable.
The past three decades have seen a significant decline in the value of
the Corps of Engineers capital stock portfolio. An estimate of the value of
that portfolio shows a decline from a peak value of $250 billion in 1983,
to $165 billion today (2011; see Figure 1).
The trend of steadily declining investments in the nation’s water
OCR for page 11
11
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
FIGURE 1 Net Capital Stock Estimates of Corps Civil Works Projects, 1928-2009
(2009 dollars). Investments made prior to 1928 are not included in the figure. The
MRT acronym refers to “Mississippi River and Tributaries.”
SOURCE: Steven Stockton, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communica -
tion, 2010.
resources infrastructure is sobering in many respects. For example, some
implications of these declining investments are reflected in the state of
the nation’s levees. There are approximately 14,000 miles of levees in the
federal levee system (USACE, 2011a) that were constructed by and/or are
overseen by the Corps (and not counting levees built by local entities such
as reclamation and drainage districts), with thousands of flood-prone
communities located behind them. Many levees are in a state of deteriora-
tion, and many citizens and communities behind these levees have only a
limited appreciation of the flood risks to which they are exposed.
There is no national inventory of all these levees, nor is there a system-
atic program of levee inspection and maintenance. A National Committee
on Levee Safety was established in the 2007 Water Resources Develop-
ment Act to develop a report and strategy for addressing national levee
safety challenges. In addition, Congress funded the Corps of Engineers to
undertake a national levee inventory, which is now completed, but mainly
for levees in the federal levee system (USACE, 2011a). Similarly, many
of the nation’s locks and dams that support commercial navigation are
aging and in need of upgrades and repairs (e.g., see discussion of aging
Ohio River locks and dams in Box 2). On the Upper Mississippi River-
Illinois Waterway, in Title VIII of the 2007 Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) Congress authorized approximately $2 billion for new locks
OCR for page 12
12 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
BOX 2
Navigation Infrastructure Maintenance
and Renewal on the Ohio River
The Ohio River has been changed significantly by an extensive system of 21
lock-dam facilities which allow for pool maintenance and year-round transporta-
tion of bulk commercial goods, especially coal. Without these navigation control
systems, river transport and riverfront development would be significantly less
than they are today. The Ohio River basin region has become dependent on the
lock and dam infrastructure and the management services that it makes possible.
However, these services are at increasing risk as the infrastructure and equipment
that make year-round navigation possible and reliable continue to age without
adequate maintenance and renewal.
An example of the infrastructure renewal challenge is provided by the Upper
Ohio River navigation system (USACE, 2011c). The Emsworth, Dashields, and
Montgomery lock-dam facilities are the first three locks and dams on the Ohio
River below Pittsburgh. All three facilities were built prior to 1940 (Emsworth,
1922; Dashields, 1929; Montgomery, 1936), and are the oldest structures with the
smallest lock chambers in the Ohio River system. In addition to limitations posed
by inadequate lock capacity, all three have serious structural problems due to their
age and do not conform to modern design criteria. All three facilities underwent
major rehabilitation in the 1980s and early 1990s to extend the useful life of the
projects another 25 years, but many known problems were not addressed, the 25-
year extension period is now coming to an end, and substantial renewal can no
longer be avoided. The Corps of Engineers undertook a long-range planning effort
for the Upper Ohio navigation system in 2007 which is scheduled for completion
in 2012. If funding for study completion, engineering and design, and construction
is seamless and project authorization is timely, then lock replacement and other
work at the Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery facilities could be potentially
completed in 10-15 years. The history of similar projects in the Ohio River basin,
however, suggests that financing and construction of new facilities will take much
longer.
In the absence of funding for replacement of the infrastructure to return the
Ohio River lock and dam system to its original reliability, and to bring the system
up to modern design standards and capacity requirements, the three Upper Ohio
River locks and dams are kept operating with repairs funded under the annual
operating and maintenance budget of the Pittsburgh District of the Corps of En-
gineers. Funding for improvements to the infrastructure is largely limited to those
that are deemed “emergency” in nature, e.g., the replacement of two gates on the
Montgomery Dam which were damaged by a runaway barge in 2008. Eight ad-
ditional gates are in need of replacement at the Montgomery Dam, but funds are
not available for the $5 million cost of each gate.
SOURCES: David J. Heidish, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, personal
communication, 2011; USACE, 2011c.
OCR for page 13
13
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
(that would replace existing ones) at five locations on the Mississippi
River and two on the Illinois River.
Despite the declining trend in infrastructure investment, the Corps of
Engineers can be expected to be directed occasionally to undertake a high-
priority civil works project. There is no better example than the Corps’
post-Katrina work in strengthening the Greater New Orleans Hurricane
and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System. Following Katrina, the U.S.
Congress provided $14.5 billion of federal funding for levee and flood -
wall repair and strengthening, pump station repairs and upgrades, levee
armoring, and other infrastructure improvements across the Greater New
Orleans metro area (USACE, 2011b). These construction activities extend
across 350 miles of protective structures and include a large surge barrier
(Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Surge Barrier). The Corps’ post-Katrina
efforts illustrate a type of flood risk and emergency response challenge
that the Corps will face in the future despite the declining trend in civil
works infrastructure investment. These conditions also point to a national
need for a Corps of Engineers that is able to respond to not-fully-antici -
pated water planning or emergency response needs.
There has been a declining level of investment in the civil works infra -
structure owned and operated by the Corps of Engineers. Deferred costs
of maintenance of the nation’s aging flood and hurricane protection, and
navigation, infrastructure are considerable. Despite decreasing emphasis
on new construction, Congress and the nation will continue to rely upon
the Corps for emergency response activities and for periodic upgrades to
civil works infrastructure.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS CAPACITIES AND PLANNING
Regardless of the trend in reduced investments in civil works infra -
structure, needs and demands continue for operations and maintenance,
upgrades in existing infrastructure, and for new water resources proj -
ects. At the same time, the Corps of Engineers remains responsible for
operations and maintenance of a vast, existing infrastructure that includes
approximately 700 dams and nearly 12,000 miles of federal levees (Appen-
dix B). In addition to traditional services of flood control and naviga -
tion, the Corps of Engineers is often authorized to provide complemen -
tary benefits (e.g., water supply, hydroelectric power production), along
with more recently authorized project purposes (e.g., aquatic ecosystem
restoration).
In a previous era, the main disciplines represented within Corps
of Engineers project planning were engineering, hydrology, hydraulics,
and economics. These disciplines remain important in Corps planning
and project operations. However, changes in the nature of Corps water
OCR for page 14
14 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
projects have entailed changes in the analytical methods and planning
approaches needed to address a new planning environment. Examples of
scientific and technical fields and applications that are driving the need for
“new expertise” include infrastructure sensing; decision support systems;
modeling and forecasting of global grain markets; integrated hydrologi -
cal and ecosystem modeling; conceptual ecological model development
for endangered species and other species of interest; waterway traffic
modeling; risk analysis and communication; valuation of environmen -
tal benefits; and large-scale hydrologic system modeling. Also, as the
Corps often plays a prominent role in facilitating multi-objective deci -
sions among competing user groups, concepts and applications such as
adaptive management, conflict resolution, and facilitation have become
increasingly important.
A challenge for the Corps of Engineers in meeting water planning
needs in today’s water management era is the need to develop new exper-
tise at a time of a long-term decline in the number of Corps personnel
and declining budgets for Corps research. Over the past three decades,
the Corps has experienced a declining number of personnel. Employment
within its civil works programs has dropped by roughly 25 percent since
an employment peak in 1983 (but has experienced a recent uptick; see
Figure 2).
Civilian (FTE)
50,000 FY83 Peak
46,130
Total USACE
40,000 37,063
FY03
FY07 FY10
FY83 Peak
34,070
33,750
32,408
34,993 32,558
Civil Works
FY72 Low
30,000 28,013
24,464
27,498
26,446 22,617 22,607
FY65 Low
20,000 FY86 Peak
16,020
Military Programs
11,143
9,941
9,050 9,606
10,000 7,495
7,309
FY73 Low
0
67 71 75 79 83 87 91 95 99 '03 '07
Fiscal Year
FIGURE 2 Corps of Engineers Staffing Trends, 1964-2010.
SOURCE: Bruce Carlson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communica -
tion, 2011.
OCR for page 15
15
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
The Corps’ ability to adopt and implement more contemporary plan -
ning approaches may be stymied further by planning guidance and regu -
lations that have not been updated to adequately reflect modern prin -
ciples. For instance, the Corps of Engineers is mandated to comply with
the federal Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (U.S. Water Resources
Council, 1983) to guide its water planning studies. Although of great util-
ity in an earlier era, many groups have found the “Principles and Guide -
lines” document in need of modernization to conform better to today’s
water planning context and needs (e.g., NRC, 2004). The ongoing effort
by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to update
the Principles and Guidelines document offers an opportunity to promote
more efficient water resources planning by the Corps of Engineers and
other federal agencies (see NRC, 2010, for a review of CEQ’s initial pro-
posed changes to this document).
Despite declining investment levels and numbers of Corps per-
sonnel, the nation expects the Corps to provide a number of services,
including flood risk management, water-based recreation, commercial
navigation, ecosystem restoration, hydropower production, water sup -
ply, and coastal and beach protection. This situation leads to expecta-
tions that the Corps of Engineers and its civil works construction pro -
gram cannot meet consistently.
AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESSES
Traditional Corps of Engineers water resources projects receive con-
gressional authorization in a federal Water Resources Development Act,
and receive project funding through a separate appropriations process.
There is a growing number of federal water resources projects that have
received congressional authorization, but are awaiting appropriations.
This applies both to projects that have not yet started, and to projects that
have begun but are unfinished. There also is a considerable backlog of
maintenance.
One implication of this “backlog” of authorized projects that are not
fully (or at all) funded is that newly authorized projects often must wait
for appropriations until projects in the backlog first receive funding. The
monetary value of the current backlog is estimated to be nearly $60 billion
dollars (see Box 3 for more discussion of this backlog).
The size of this backlog implies that communities or other project ben-
eficiaries often will wait years, if not a decade or longer, to receive federal
water project funding. Further, the backlog exists in a setting in which a
Corps of Engineers planning study typically requires several years (NRC,
1999). These realities can be frustrating for communities or other project
OCR for page 16
16 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
BOX 3
Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Backlog
The term “backlog” is used to describe generally Corps of Engineers water
resources projects that have received congressional authorization, and await ap-
propriations. Usually these projects have either been funded for construction, au-
thorized by Congress, or have been identified in a feasibility report and continued
into pre-construction engineering and design. The backlog represents the balance
to complete construction for these specifically defined projects of known scope that
local interests expect the Corps to build.
Projects in the backlog are normally divided into three categories: active, de-
ferred, and inactive projects. Active projects are usually funded and supported by
the non-federal sponsor and/or have been authorized. All these projects are being
actively pursued.
The backlog for the Active projects is currently $59.6 billion.
Deferred projects have doubtful economic justification and need further study
in order to determine their economic feasibility. Generally, they are not opposed by
the nonfederal sponsor, but the nonfederal sponsor is unable to provide required
cooperation. Inactive projects are not economically justified and it is anticipated
that a restudy would not develop a justified plan.
The inactive and deferred projects backlog is about $2 billion. Since it is unlikely
that these projects will ever be built, that amount is of little consequence to the
overall backlog.
SOURCE: Bruce Carlson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication, 2011.
co-sponsors that perceive a need for federal support in new water project
construction, or for upgrades or maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Another implication of this large and increasing backlog is that the
demands for federally funded water resources projects are affecting the
ability of the federal government, and agencies like the Corps of Engi -
neers, to construct such projects reliably and efficiently (NAPA, 2007).
Authorization of a federal water project through the WRDA process
does not include a plan or timeline for project appropriations. Even if
an authorized water project eventually receives federal appropriations,
that funding often is delivered in incremental amounts. This process of
partial project funding through the annual appropriations process results
in many projects moving forward in a piecemeal, stop-start manner. This
state of affairs can result in inefficient project delivery and higher overall
costs, and may be damaging the Corps of Engineers’ credibility.
Given this backlog and the realities of modern budget constraints, the
Congress and the nation may need to consider more efficient, creative,
OCR for page 17
17
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
and flexible approaches to managing flood risks, waterway congestion,
endangered species and ecosystem protection, and other water-related
challenges. The Corps and the nation may need to place a stronger empha-
sis on approaches and projects with reduced operation and maintenance
needs for ensuring their long-term sustainability.
The backlog of authorized federal water resources projects that have
not yet received appropriations, or which have begun some level of plan-
ning or construction and await additional funds for completion, is consid-
erable. There is also a considerable backlog of existing water project and
infrastructure maintenance. The collective backlog of unfinished work
leads to projects being delayed, conducted in a stop-start manner, and to
overall inefficient project delivery.
DECENTRALIZATION OF PLANNING
AND OPERATIONAL DECISIONS
Another trend in U.S. water policy has been some decentralization
of decision making, with more shared responsibilities among the Corps,
and with project co-sponsors and other stakeholder groups. Although
demands for federal involvement in and funding of water projects remain
strong, several factors have relegated more decision-making authority to
local entities and stakeholders.
Cost sharing. WRDA 1986 increased the financial responsibilities of
local project co-sponsors. With increasing fiscal responsibility, local spon -
sors understandably have demanded a stronger voice in project planning
and implementation. Although the Corps of Engineers has sought to
become more responsive to local needs, cost-sharing requirements may be
driving the Corps away from systems-based, watershed planning (NRC,
1999).
Stakeholder collaboration. Cost sharing and other requirements have
resulted in more direct input from local stakeholder groups in water
policy planning and decisions (NRC, 1999). The Corps has recognized
this and is actively participating in multi-stakeholder forums in many
areas of the country, such as the Missouri River Recovery Implementation
Committee (MRRIC). The Corps thus is more frequently collaborating
with local sponsors and other parties affected by federal water projects in
identifying water resources priorities, resource limits, and trade-off deci -
sions (see USACE and Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 2007, for
an example of Corps-State of Illinois DNR cooperation). The Corps also is
striving to strengthen relations and collaboration with nongovernmental
organizations (see The Nature Conservancy, 2011) with interests and pro-
grams in water quality and ecosystem restoration. These conditions and
trends present opportunities for the Corps to help multiple parties better
OCR for page 18
18 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
understand hydrologic and aquatic systems, and work toward compro-
mise and consensus agreements which can be updated as environmental
factors and economic conditions and preferences change over time.
Recognition of the limits of “top down” water management. Federal leader-
ship remains important for numerous water programs and functions. At
the same time, in fields such as flood risk management and mitigation,
the importance of local and state government input and in sharing risks,
and factors such as local land use zoning and regulations, have become
increasingly clear and recognized. For example, a recent NRC report that
advised the Corps of Engineers on hurricane protection and ecosystem
restoration in southern Louisiana encouraged the Corps to work more
closely with state and local entities. The report noted that, for example, “It
is necessary to clearly delineate the roles of federal and state governments
in the collaborative design and development of a comprehensive system
that includes coastal, structural, and non-structural protections” (NRC,
2009b, p. 38). In recognition of these conditions and trends, the Corps of
Engineers has established its Silver Jackets program. The program aims
to provide Corps of Engineers technical assistance in flooding and other
natural disasters within collaborative partnerships with state and local
entities (see USACE, 2011d, for more information on the program).
Budget realities and constraints. Figure 1 reflects declining appropria-
tions for federal water resources projects. The Corps recognizes this trend
and acknowledges that its future roles will include more collaboration
and partnerships, noting that they will “work collaboratively with a broad
range of stakeholders to help solve water resources problems in an inte-
grated and sustainable manner” (USACE, 2010). Moreover, these budget
realities may herald a future with a stronger emphasis on projects that
employ creative policy and operational strategies, and that entail reduced
maintenance requirements and promote long-term sustainability. Exam-
ples of water planning and management approaches that may become
more prominent and necessary in the future are floodplain management
activities such as zoning, flood risk communication, and evacuation plan -
ning (see ASFPM, 2007; NRC, 2009a), and greater reliance on ecosystem
services provided by restoration of wetlands and historic streambeds.
These changes pose challenges to a traditional, construction-oriented
agency like the Corps of Engineers, and they portend a need for the Corps
to make some shifts in overall program emphasis and staffing skills and
disciplines. At the same time, they present opportunities for the Corps
to provide needed services in nontraditional areas such as facilitation,
adaptive management, and inter-agency cooperation. A good example of
a proactive Corps of Engineers initiative in these areas is the development
of a “Shared Vision Planning” approach at the Corps’ Institute for Water
Resources (USACE, 2009). The computer-based, collaborative planning
OCR for page 19
19
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
approach supported by Shared Vision Planning holds promise in support-
ing the Corps as a facilitator and partner in multiple-stakeholder dialogue
and in adaptive management. These areas and water planning approaches
will be increasingly important for the Corps and essential to more efficient
national water management.
The modern context for water resources management involves
smaller budgets, cost sharing, an expanded range of objectives, and
inclusion of more public and private stakeholders in management deci-
sions. Two important implications of these conditions are (1) given
current budget realities, the nation may have to consider more flexible,
innovative, and lower cost solutions to achieving water-related objec -
tives, and (2) the Corps of Engineers will by necessity work in settings
with more collaboration and public and private partnerships than in
the past.
Decentralization of some planning and operational decisions pres-
ents challenges for the Corps, but it also presents opportunities to par-
ticipate in and facilitate decision making with its partners to leverage
resources external to the Corps in new ways.
TRADITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPANDING MISSIONS
The past 50 years have seen the passage of landmark environmental
and other legislation which has had important implications for the water
resources work of the Corps. Key examples of this legislation are the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Water Act in 1972,
and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. This legislation created numer-
ous new responsibilities and requirements for the Corps of Engineers.
More recent environmental legislation, such as proposed numeric nutrient
criteria for lakes and flowing waters in Florida (USEPA, 2010), is creating
additional planning and operational challenges for the Corps. The Corps
of Engineers also is constrained and driven by a large body of other laws
and authorizations. Like other federal agencies with multiple missions
governed by multiple laws and associated regulations, it is a challenge for
the Corps to reconcile inconsistencies within this body of laws and regu -
lations which in aggregate comprise national water policy (NRC, 2004).
The new legislation and regulations have also charged the Corps of
Engineers to undertake restoration of aquatic and wetland ecosystems in
addition to the traditional water resources missions of flood control and
navigation infrastructure. The Corps adopted ecosystem restoration as
a mission and explicit project purpose in 1996, and restoration projects
today comprise some of the agency’s largest activities—especially the
Florida Everglades and coastal Louisiana restoration projects.
One result of these changes is that the Corps often is in a position of
OCR for page 20
20 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
trying to accommodate a range of very different constituencies, and trying
to achieve a multitude of objectives that are not consistent and compat -
ible. An example would be a conflict between meeting hydropower pro -
duction goals, and ecosystem restoration to support endangered species,
as each of these missions may require different, perhaps incompatible,
reservoir release schedules. The Corps is often in the position of having
to make a decision between operating a project for its legally mandated
purpose, or complying with environmental protection mandates and eco -
system restoration recommendations from other agencies, the states, or
the public. (One example of where the Corps must reconcile potentially
conflicting legislation is in the Missouri River mainstem dam and reser-
voir system; see Box 4.)
The modern context of numerous objectives, constituencies, and gov -
erning legislation presents a complex management environment for the
Corps. Like other federal agencies with multiple missions governed by
a wide variety of often unintegrated and inconsistent laws and regula-
tions, the agency must reconcile its inconsistencies in the absence of a
formal national water policy or any body charged with developing and
implementing one (Craig, 2008). Furthermore, because of natural limits of
water resources systems, many Corps of Engineers’ actions and policies
today necessarily entail “zero sum”-type trade-off decisions—or decisions
which do not create new benefits, but rather re-distribute existing benefits
among competing users (also see NRC, 2011).
This context of water policy decisions obviously can be contentious
and it poses considerable challenges to the Corps. Reconciling these
diverse and often conflicting obligations is at the core of “integrated water
management,” which can be challenging in practice because of the frag -
mented, multi-stakeholder, multi-objective, and litigious water resources
planning environment. Furthermore, these challenges may be magnified
by factors such as scientific uncertainties, inter-agency or interstate dis -
agreements, or unrealistic stakeholder expectations.
The Corps of Engineers is increasingly challenged to provide a
wide variety of water project benefits, some of which often are not
consistent and compatible with one another. Some of these challenges
relate to inconsistencies in authorizing legislation and related regula -
tions, while some relate to the natural limits of hydrologic and ecologic
systems. As a result of these factors, the Corps increasingly finds itself
involved in controversies over shared water resources that are beyond
the agency’s mandates and resources to fully resolve.
OCR for page 21
21
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
BOX 4
Reconciling Multiple Authorities Along the Missouri River
The Corps of Engineers is authorized to operate and maintain the six major
mainstem dams along the Missouri River. These dams along the Missouri impound
the largest reservoir system in North America. Recently, there has been some
devolution of decision-making authority for the Missouri River dam and reservoir
system, but the Corps of Engineers clearly has retained its role as the river sys-
tem’s “water master.”
The Corps faces innumerable challenges in trying to fulfill the authorized pur-
poses of the dam and reservoir system, which include flood control; navigation;
water supply; hydroelectric power generation; recreation; and fish and wildlife. In
trying to balance these multiple uses of the river system, the Corps must consider
various legislative acts and directives, such as the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In doing so, the Corps
works closely with other federal agencies (especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) in making operational decisions for the river and the reservoir system.
The Corps also must work closely with the Missouri River states, tribes, and many
other stakeholder interests. The Missouri River Recovery Implementation Commit-
tee (MRRIC) was established in 2007 as a multiple stakeholder group to facilitate
discussion and negotiations among the Corps and these diverse interests along
the river.
The challenges of working under multiple authorities, and the inconsistencies
that often arise among them, was clearly stated in 2002 by the then-Commanding
General of the Corps Northwestern Division, General David Fastabend:
The challenge is that the people of the United States have—over time—told us to
do many, many things. In the 1930s and 1940s the American people told us to build,
operate and maintain the Missouri River mainstem system for multiple project pur-
poses. Since that original mission, the American people have given us additional
instructions. In the 1970s they gave us the Endangered Species Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act…As you can well imagine, no one was able to “deconflict”
the multiple instructions given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our guidance
is sometimes contradictory and the resolution of those contradictions is extremely
problematic (Fastabend, 2002).
Two important initiatives taken since the early 2000s by the Corps to help rec-
oncile some of these issues are the updating of its Master Manual for the Missouri
River Mainstem Reservoir System (2004) and the establishment of the Missouri
River Recovery Implementation Committee (2007).
FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR THE CORPS IN NATIONAL
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP
This report depicts a modern water project planning and policy con-
text that has changed markedly from an earlier era of larger budgets,
clearer priorities, and greater deference to Corps of Engineers plans and
OCR for page 22
22 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
actions. Demands for goods and services provided by Corps projects,
and the nation’s riverine, wetland, and other aquatic systems, continue
to expand and broaden; at the same time, federal budgets for water
resources projects are declining. Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers has
experienced a marked reduction in its civilian work force from an employ-
ment peak in the early 1980s.
The trends and conditions identified in this report present a water
resources planning paradox for the Corps of Engineers and the nation.
On the one hand, population and economic growth and increasing
urban water demands in some areas of the country, occasional severe
drought conditions, and new laws and authorities exert demands on the
nation’s existing water resources and for infrastructure improvements
and upgrades. The products and services provided by an entity like the
Corps are as important as ever. At the same time, the Corps of Engineers,
with its mandate for national water resources planning, is affected by
declining levels of investment, decreases in personnel, changes and shifts
in the nature of water resources projects, and staffing needs for the skills
and capacities required to most effectively address emerging water chal-
lenges and related needs.
The Corps of Engineers clearly has entered an era of resource con -
straints, along with changing demands from the nation’s water systems
and for Corps planning expertise. At the same time, the agency largely
retains a structure with division and district offices across the nation
that existed decades ago when the Corps was constructing far more civil
works projects. Given the new realities described in this report, the U.S.
Congress and the Corps of Engineers may wish to consider if there is a
need to re-align or streamline the agency’s organizational structure to
better fit modern conditions.
The Corps also may wish to carefully consider the future roles of its
centers of expertise. There is likely to be a need for greater efficiencies in
future Corps planning efforts. For example, a previous National Research
Council committee concluded that, “Creating a means for drawing from
Corps personnel across district lines and allowing Corps staff from its cen-
ters of expertise, such as the Corps Institute for Water Resources . . . and
its Waterways Experiment Station . . . would allow the Corps to bring its
best minds to bear upon its more complex planning studies” (NRC, 2004).
Another related organizational issue the Corps may wish to consider
is the prospect for strengthening its relationships with the private sector
through “public-private partnerships.” Collaboration with the private
sector promises to become increasingly important for the Corps, and
the agency may wish to augment those relationships with additional
contracts with the private sector to supplement internal skills, explore
OCR for page 23
23
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
project financing alternatives, improve communications within project
operations, or other opportunities.
It will be crucial that the Corps, the U.S. Congress, and the numerous
partners and constituencies of the Corps acknowledge these new realities.
All parties will have to consider the key priorities and responsibilities for
the future Corps of Engineers. In order to reach more harmonious and
more flexible hydro-system operational decisions and regimes, it will be
important for the Corps and water user groups to acknowledge the lim -
its of water system benefits (e.g., water supplies, ecosystem goods and
services), and the need to distribute limited resources among many, often
competing, users.
Although the changing societal and budgetary context for water
resources management clearly presents challenges for the Corps, this also
offers opportunities to develop and implement new, creative approaches
to water management in which more responsibilities are shared with
states and local governments, and other federal agencies. Examples of
emerging areas and opportunities, and inter-agency collaboration, for
the Corps include helping better integrate water quality regulation and
management with water resources planning, groundwater storage and
retrieval, and urban stormwater management. It also will be important
for the Corps to continue to explore and develop different means and
techniques for evaluating and explaining multi-objective, trade-off deci -
sions. Examples of such techniques include negotiation and conflict reso -
lution skills, multi-criteria decision analysis, and resource valuation and
monetization.
The Corps of Engineers reflects a national water planning paradox:
national water resources demands are increasing and becoming more
complex, while at the same time, national investments in water infra -
structure exhibit a declining trend. Moreover, in some parts of the nation
there are additional water management objectives relevant to Corps proj -
ect operations, such as water quality goals, in which the agency may be
requested to expand its involvement.
The nation’s water planning needs and priorities promise to become
even more contentious, complex, and harder to anticipate, in the future.
As this report describes, the nature of water planning and the typical
water resources project have shifted over the past 50 years. Examples of
topics of priority and concern across the United States today are improved
flood risk management, efficient water infrastructure planning and invest-
ments, navigation infrastructure, water-based recreation, hydropower
generation, water supply, ecosystem restoration and endangered species
protection, water quality, and understanding and managing water-related
risks associated with hydrologic nonstationarity. The Corps of Engineers’
authorities, levels of staffing, and resources have gone through changes
OCR for page 24
24 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE CHALLENGES FACING THE USACE
over the years. At the same time, the Corps of Engineers retains a clear
leadership role in many of the nation’s major river and aquatic systems,
and there will be a continued need for an innovative and responsive
Corps of Engineers to lead efforts in addressing national water planning
challenges.
