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 9
1
Introduction
The Corps of Engineers has constructed, operates, and maintains a vast national water
resources infrastructure, with various facilities in all 50 U.S. states. The Corps' traditional
mission areas were flood control and navigation enhancement, and the agency has constructed
tens of thousands of miles of levees, hundreds of locks and dams for navigation, and dams for
multiple purposes including hydroelectric power generation. The Corps has constructed channel
control structures along hundreds of miles of rivers, and along the intracoastal waterways of the
southern and eastern U.S. The Corps also has important responsibilities in ensuring navigable
depths in the nation's ports and harbors. Corps water resources infrastructure affects river flows
and levels on many of the nation's large river systems, including the Columbia, Missouri,
Mississippi, and Ohio rivers.
Much of the Corps of Engineers water resources infrastructure was constructed decades
ago and many of these structures are nearing, or have exceeded, design lives of 50 years. For
example, there are today approximately 700 dams across the nation that were constructed Corps
of Engineers. Approximately 95 percent of the dams managed by the Corps are more than 30
years old, and 52 percent have reached or exceeded the 50-year service lives for which they were
designed (USACE, 2012a). Similar statistics can be cited for Corps levees, hydropower, and
other facilities. This deterioration of Corps water resources infrastructure is a microcosm of
larger national trends in the deteriorating condition of major infrastructure including highways,
bridges, roads, airports, and drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities. Degradation of
U.S. infrastructure has been discussed in many fora, such as the well-known annual
infrastructure `report cards' issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (e.g., ASCE,
2012a). In addition to again Corps water infrastructure, federal resources for major rehabilitation
have decreased. Since the mid-1980s, the constant dollar value estimate of the Corps' net capital
stock civil works projects has decreased from roughly $237 billion in the 1980s, to about $164
billion (Calvert, 2012).
The water resources infrastructure of the U.S. is in most senses complete, or "built out,"
and national water infrastructure investment needs increasingly are centered on maintenance and
rehabilitation. However, many of the processes developed over the years, and still in use, by the
U.S. Congress to ensure viable national water resources infrastructure revolve around planning,
authorizing, and in some cases providing appropriations for new water project construction.
These processes are reflected in occasional federal Water Resources Development Acts, or
9
P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y
OCR for page 10
10 Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment?
WRDAs. The WRDA process historically was not developed or used as a primary vehicle for
water project maintenance and rehabilitation, but these issues today are increasingly important
national water investment priorities.
It is in this context that the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science, Engineering, and Planning produced its second
report. This committee is scheduled to release five reports during the course of its tenure of
approximately five years, on a series of different water resources issues of importance to the
Corps of Engineers. The committee issued its first report in 2011 (NRC, 2011), with a focus on
national water resources challenges and roles for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Topics for
this committee's third, fourth, and fifth reports will be developed and agreed upon by the Corps
and the National Research Council in the future.
This report investigates existing Corps water resources infrastructure, including its
navigation, flood management, and hydropower generating infrastructure (Box 1-1). The report
focuses on `hard' infrastructure assets such as locks, dams, levees, and hydropower facilities, and
not on related resources that are affected by Corps facilities and their operations, such as
wetlands, endangered species, sediment, or water quality.
The background for the following report includes an extensive set of National Research
Council reports that reviewed various aspects of Corps of Engineers planning processes and
methods (Box 1-2). NRC committees have, for example, reviewed the Corps of Engineers
planning process, analytical methods, and ecosystem restoration. The NRC also has reviewed
Corps of Engineers projects and planning studies for the Florida Everglades, the Missouri River,
the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway, coastal Louisiana, and the New Orleans hurricane
protection system. Recently, the NRC reviewed a draft of the federal "Principles and
Guidelines" that guide planning steps of the Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies
(NRC, 2010a).
The present report is distinct from previous NRC reports in that it does not focus on
planning methods for new projects, or possible changes in operational regimes for better
management of water and related resources. Rather, the report examines maintenance and
rehabilitation of existing Corps water infrastructure. The setting of priorities, options for funding
maintenance and rehabilitation needs, and alternatives for maintaining or decommissioning parts
of that infrastructure also are discussed. Evaluation or critiques of issues such as multi-criterion
decision making for new water projects, benefit-cost analysis, federal Principles and Guidelines,
or adaptive management, are beyond the scope of this report, although some of these topics are
referred to as part of the analyses conducted.
It also should be noted that this report focuses specifically on Corps of Engineers water
resources infrastructure and does not consider and evaluate specifically operational or
maintenance programs of other federal water agencies, such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Further, the report does not consider other national water issues such as food security, irrigation,
remediation of groundwater pollution, climatic and hydrologic nonstationarity, or provision of
water supplies and drinking water. Some of these issues are closely related to Corps of
Engineers water infrastructure, and some of them were discussed in the course of the
committee's deliberations and preparation of its report. Ultimately, however, the committee
decided to focus tightly on only those issues prescribed in its statement of task.
The Corps of Engineers is authorized to carry out projects in seven mission areas:
navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage
P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y
OCR for page 11
Introduction 11
BOX 1-1
STATEMENT OF TASK
This committee will provide advice to the Corps of Engineers on a range of scientific,
engineering, and water resources planning issues through periodic reports. 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
management of climate change and variability.
This committee's first report (NRC, 2011) identified emerging national water resources
challenges and their implications for Corps of Engineers strategies and programs. The committee's
second report will focus on the future of Corps of Engineers water resources infrastructure.
Part of the committee's work plan for this second report will include a meeting with several
invited speakers to discuss the purposes, condition, investment levels and projected needs, funding
alternatives, and decision making processes relevant to operations, maintenance, and improvements
(recapitalization, rehabilitation, repurposing, decommissioning, etc.) of Corps of Engineers water
resources infrastructure.
The committee's report will seek to identify alternatives and opportunities for improved
decision making and prioritization in regard to maintenance, upgrades, and modernization of the
navigation, flood risk management, hydropower, and related ecosystem infrastructure managed by
the Corps.
The report also will consider potential opportunities and innovations for managing Corps
water resources infrastructure in a modern context of more intergovernmental and public/private
partnerships and collaboration.
The committee will not recommend changes in levels of federal water resources funding, nor will
it recommend changes in Corps of Engineers organizational restructuring.
Statements of task for subsequent reports will be determined through discussions between
the committee and the Corps, and will be subject to approval of the Academies' Governing
Board Executive Committee.
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation (USACE, 2000). The
first three of these generally are referred to as the Corps' civil works primary missions.
The hard infrastructure considered in this report is facilities managed by the Corps, or
facilities at which the Corps is a critical partner (e.g., many ports and harbors). This
infrastructure includes locks, dams (both navigation dams and multi-purpose dams), hydropower
generating facilities, port and harbor facilities, and levees, floodwalls, and other flood protection
infrastructure. Corps hard infrastructure assets are not distributed evenly across its various
mission areas. The hard infrastructure for which the Corps is responsible lies mainly within its
missions for navigation, flood damage reduction, and hydropower generation, and this report
focuses on those three areas. Regarding ecosystem restoration, Corps hard infrastructure often is
integral to ecosystem restoration efforts. There are important links between Corps infrastructure
and aquatic ecosystems resources. In some places, hard infrastructure has been or is being
P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y
OCR for page 12
12 Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment?
BOX 1-2
EXAMPLES OF NRC REPORTS REVIEWING CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLANNING
The National Research Council has issued numerous reports that have examined Corps of
Engineers planning studies and methods. In some instances, these reports have focused on methods,
models, and techniques. In other instances, the reports have focused on technical applications in
planning studies in specific aquatic and river systems. This box presents a sampling of these reports.
Improving American River Flood Frequency Analyses. 1999. Reviewed Corps flood-frequency
curve of the American River in California.
New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999.
Reviewed Corps planning procedures and the implications of WRDA 1986 cost-sharing criteria.
Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies. 2000. Reviewed the use of
risk-based methods in Corps flood damage reduction studies.
A set of coordinated studies on various dimensions of Corps planning methods and approaches
were congressionally mandated in Section 216 of the 2000 Water Resources Development. They have
been informally referred to as "the 216 studies."
Review Procedures for Water Resources Project Planning. 2002.
Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. 2004.
Analytical Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Project Planning. 2004.
River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service. 2005.
The NRC conducted reviews of Corps studies that evaluated the economic feasibility of
extensions of several locks on the lower portion of the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway.
Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway. 2001.
Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restructured Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway Feasibility Study. Two 2004 reports.
Water Resources Planning for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. 2005.
Similarly, the NRC has performed multiple reviews of restoration plans in the Florida Everglades
(e.g., NRC, 2010b).
Following Hurricane Katrina, the Department of the Army requested the NRC and the National
Academy of Engineering to review successive drafts that evaluated performance of the New Orleans
hurricane protection system during Hurricane Katrina. Short reports were issued in 2006 (three) and
2008. That committee's final report was:
The New Orleans Hurricane Protection System: Assessing Pre-Katrina Vulnerability and
Improving Mitigation and Preparedness. 2009.
removed, altered, or re-operated to help achieve restoration goals. This report does not consider
the implications of maintenance, upgrades, and modernization of hard infrastructure on resources
such as wetlands, fisheries, sediment, or endangered species. These latter categories encompass
considerations distinct from hard infrastructure resources, financing, and prioritization. Further,
evaluation of the links between Corps infrastructure OMR and ecosystems, given the breadth of
the topic, would entail a separate investigation. The committee viewed this interpretation as
P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y
OCR for page 13
Introduction 13
consistent with its charge to consider "...navigation, flood risk management, hydropower, and
related ecosystem infrastructure managed by the Corps."
This committee held its first meeting of this phase of the project in Washington, D.C. in
April 2011, where it engaged with several Corps of Engineers senior staff members, along with
numerous guest speakers from outside the agency. A second meeting was held in Davenport,
Iowa in July 2011 and was hosted by Corps of Engineers staff from its Rock Island District
office. That meeting featured presentations from Corps of Engineers staff, regional water
experts from outside the agency, and representatives from communities affected by floods, as
well as a field trip to the Corps' Mississippi River Lock and Dam 15 facilities. A third meeting
was held in Washington, D.C. in December 2011 that also featured guest speakers mainly from
outside the Corps of Engineers. A fourth and final writing meeting, which included a field trip to
Hoover Dam and engagement with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation officials, was held in Las Vegas
in March 2012. Guest speakers at the meetings are listed in Appendix A.
This report is organized into four chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter
2 reviews and comments upon historical federal water resources planning processes, with an
emphasis on the Water Resources Development Act. Chapter 3 examines the state of Corps
infrastructure and related challenges in setting OMR priorities, and opportunities to address these
issues in the Corps mission areas of navigation, flood risk management, and hydropower
generation. Chapter 4 summarizes committee observations regarding the state of Corps water
resources infrastructure, and presents options for paths forward in managing existing Corps
water resources infrastructure.
Primary audiences for this report are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Congress, and the executive branch. There are many other audiences for this report and they
include state and local elected officials and water managers, the commercial navigation sector,
floodplain communities, port and harbor authorities, the energy production sector, and
nongovernmental environmental organizations.
P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y
