WaterWired

USGAO Report: 'Water Resources Projects - Army Corps of Engineers Can Further Enhance Acceleration of Feasibility Studies'

This GAO report: 'Water Resources Projects - Army Corps of Engineers Can Further Enhance Acceleration of Feasibility Studies'

Download GAO_USACE_Highlights_29July2019

Download GAO_USACE_Report_29July2019

Here you go!

Fast Facts
The Army Corps of Engineers undertakes water resources projects to reduce the risk of damage from coastal storms, among other things. The Corps first conducts a feasibility study to determine costs, benefits, and whether the project is in the federal interest. Such studies can take years. To accelerate feasibility studies, Congress and the Corps introduced reforms.

The Corps has not fully implemented recent reforms, evaluated the impact of its reforms, or maintained complete data on its feasibility studies.

We recommended developing plans to implement remaining reforms and evaluate the impacts of reforms, and taking other actions.

What GAO Found
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has taken steps to address some feasibility study acceleration provisions under the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) but not others. For example, to implement a provision related to coordination, the Corps in September 2015 issued guidance emphasizing the importance of early coordination with other federal agencies to avoid delays later in the process. However, the Corps has not taken steps to address other provisions, such as one that calls for the Corps to establish a database to make publicly available information on the status of feasibility studies, citing resource constraints. The Corps does not have a plan to address these other provisions. A plan that includes resource estimates would better position the Corps to address the remaining acceleration provisions.

The Corps regularly monitors feasibility studies and has conducted some reviews of its acceleration reforms, such as an analysis that found that some studies were too complex to complete within the agency's timing and cost requirements—i.e., within 3 years and for less than $3 million. However, the Corps has not comprehensively evaluated the reforms' impacts. Corps officials and stakeholders expressed differing views on the reforms' impacts on the costs, time frames, and quality of feasibility studies. For example, many Corps officials GAO interviewed said the reforms' overall goals to reduce studies' cost and time frames were positive, but others raised concerns, such as that the $3 million cost limitation may not be realistic for different geographic areas. Corps officials said they have not conducted a comprehensive impact review in part because they are focused on monitoring ongoing studies. These officials said they see the value in conducting such a review as they complete more studies, but they have not developed a plan to do so. Developing an evaluation plan would help the Corps conduct a timely and effective review.

The Corps has not maintained complete milestone data in its central data system for the 19 feasibility studies GAO reviewed (see figure). For example, 12 studies did not include data for one or more milestones. Corps officials said agency policy requires the entry of information on 10 key milestones in the agency's central data system. However, GAO found that the policy only explicitly requires that two of the key 10 milestones be entered into the agency's central data system. Without clarifying its policy to help ensure officials enter data on all milestones in the central data system, the Corps will not have complete data to efficiently monitor the progress of feasibility studies.

Why GAO Did This Study
Water resources development projects undertaken by the Corps—such as those to reduce the risks from coastal storms—historically have taken years or even decades to complete. To implement these projects, the Corps first conducts a feasibility study, which includes an analysis of the federal interest and the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of a project; such studies can take several years to complete.

WRRDA 2014 requires the Corps to, among other things, conduct activities to accelerate the completion of feasibility studies. The act also includes a provision for GAO to assess acceleration reforms. This report examines the extent to which the Corps has (1) addressed the WRRDA 2014 feasibility study acceleration provisions, (2) reviewed the impact of its feasibility study acceleration reforms, and (3) maintained complete milestone data for its studies. GAO reviewed WRRDA 2014 and Corps documents; reviewed 19 feasibility studies subject to the act's acceleration provisions; analyzed data on key milestones; and interviewed Corps officials and stakeholders.

What GAO Recommends
GAO is making three recommendations to the Department of Defense to direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to (1) develop a plan with resource estimates to address the remaining WRRDA 2014 provisions, (2) develop a plan to comprehensively evaluate the impacts of the agency's acceleration reforms, and (3) clarify its policy to help ensure district officials enter data on required milestones for feasibility studies in its central data system. The agency concurred with the recommendations.

For more information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. 

Recommendations for Executive Action

1. Status: Open

   Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

   Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to develop an implementation plan that includes resource estimates to address the remaining WRRDA 2014 acceleration provisions. (Recommendation 1)

   Agency Affected: Department of Defense

1. Status: Open

   Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

   Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to develop a plan to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of the agency's feasibility study acceleration reforms. (Recommendation 2)

   Agency Affected: Department of Defense

1. Status: Open

   Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

   Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to clarify its policy to help ensure district officials enter data on all key milestones for feasibility studies into its central data system. (Recommendation 3)

   Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Enjoy!

"Knowing what must be done does away with fear." - Rosa Parks (quoted in  @wctrib via @TheWeek)

A Flood (Four!) of CRS Insight Reports: 1) 'Closing the Flood Insurance Gap'; 2) 'NFIP Borrowing Authority'; 3) 'Private Flood Insurance and NFIP'; 4) 'What Happens if NFIP Lapses?'

Here are four CRS Insight reports (just a few pages each) involving flood insurance, especially the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Diane P. Horn has authored three of the reports and co-authored the fourth one. I did a similar post on 29 April 2018.

To access each report, just click on the title. That will take you to the online versions as opposed to a PDF. It will ensure you have access to the hot links and will always see the latest updates.

I have reproduced the first paragraph or two from each report.

1) Closing the Flood Insurance Gap (updated 1 August 2019) by Diane P. Horn

There is a large flood insurance gap in the United States, where many people that are exposed to flood risk are not covered by flood insurance. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the primary source of residential flood insurance. More than 22,000 communities participate in the NFIP, with nearly 5.1 million policies providing more than $1.3 trillion in coverage.

The NFIP identifies areas at high risk of flooding as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). Property owners are required to purchase flood insurance only if (1) their properties are in SFHAs, (2) theircommunities participate in the NFIP, and (3) they have federally backed mortgages. Because the SFHA boundary is central to NFIP mapping, it may create a false belief that flood risk changes abruptly at the boundary and that properties outside the SFHA are safe and do not need flood insurance. However, about20% of NFIP claims are for properties outside SFHAs, and all 50 states have experienced floods in the last five years.

Recent floods highlight the issue of high uninsured losses. For example, in the October 2015 South Carolina floods, the average NFIP penetration rate in counties with a federal disaster declaration was 5% (Table 1). Nearly 90% of policies in South Carolina were concentrated at the coast, but the flood damage was primarily inland, where few residents were insured (Figure 1).

2) National Flood Insurance Program Borrowing Authority (Updated 1 August 2019) by Diane P. Horn

This Insight evaluates the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) borrowing authority to receive loans from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the current financial situation of the NFIP.

3) Private Flood Insurance and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (updated 1 August 2019) by Baird Webel and Diane P. Horn.

The NFIP was first authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq.) and was reauthorized until the end of FY2017 by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12; Title II of P.L. 112-141). After a series of short-term reauthorizations, the NFIP was reauthorized until September 30, 2019 (P.L. 116-20). In statute, Congress has found that:

(1) many factors have made it uneconomic for the private insurance industry alone to make flood insurance available to those in need of such protection on reasonable terms and conditions; but

(2) a program of flood insurance with large-scale participation of the Federal Government and carried out to the maximum extent practicable by the private insurance industry is feasible and can be initiated. (42 U.S.C. §4001(b)).

By law or regulation, federal agencies, federally regulated lending institutions, and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) must require certain property owners to purchase flood insurance as a condition of any mortgage that these entities make, guarantee, or purchase. Property owners are required to purchase flood insurance if their property is identified as being in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA, which is equivalent to having a 1% or greater risk of flooding every year) and is in a community that participates in the NFIP. Historically, this generally has meant that such property owners were required to purchase aStandard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) from the NFIP. In BW-12, Congress explicitly provided for private flood insurance to fulfill this mortgage requirement instead of the SFIP, if the private flood insurance met the conditions defined further in statute at 42 U.S.C. §4012a(b)(7).

4) What Happens If the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Lapses? (Updated 1 August 2019) by Diane P. Horn

This Insight provides a short overview of what would happen if the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) were not to be reauthorized by May 31, 2019, and allowed to lapse. See CRS Report R45099,National Flood Insurance Program: Selected Issues and Legislation in the 115th Congress for the current status of NFIP reauthorization legislation.

Enjoy!

"Years of drought and famine come and years of flood and famine come, and the climate is not changed with dance, libation or prayer." - John Wesley Powell

CRS Stormy Sunday Twofer: 1) 'Tropical Storm Barry - FEMA and Additional Storm-Related Resources'; 2) 'Forecasting Hurricanes: Role of the National Hurricane Center'

Talk about timely reports! The CRS has two brief ones ready to go!

1) Tropical Storm Barry: FEMA and Additional Storm-Related Resources by Bruce R. Lindsay, Elizabeth M. Webster, Diane P. Horn and Eva Lipiec.

This brief report has numerous resources. If you click on the title above you will get the version of the report with hot links.

Download CRS_Insight_Tropical_Storm_Barry_FEMA_12July2019

Introduction

This Insight provides a brief overview of emergency and major declarations and federal assistance programs potentially available to those affected by Tropical Storm Barry. It also lists resources for forecast information, hurricane and flooding information, and selected Congressional Research Service reports on federal emergency management policy.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued watches and warnings for Tropical Storm Barry, a slow-moving storm in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Current forecasts predict the storm’s landfall to occur along the Louisiana coast on Saturday, July 13, 2019. The storm is expected to result in high winds, heavy rains, and storm surge to the north-central Gulf Coast. According to NOAA, the slow-moving nature of the storm will result in a long-duration heavy rainfall threat along the central Gulf Coast and inland through the lower Mississippi Valley. Tropical Storm Barry is expected to arrive during a period of unusually heavy flooding on the Mississippi River. There are concerns Mississippi River flooding and storm surge may converge to create exceptional flooding conditions.

At the time of this writing, the President has issued an emergency declaration for Louisiana in anticipation for Tropical Storm Barry. Emergency declarations for other states may be forthcoming. As authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), the President may issue an emergency declaration in anticipation of an incident to support state and local efforts to save lives, protect property, and lessen or avert the incident from becoming a major disaster. If Tropical Storm Barry makes landfall, and the storm warrants further federal assistance, the President may issue a major disaster declaration. This allows for a broad range of federal assistance programs to be made available to state and local governments, private nonprofit organizations, and individuals through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies.

2) Forecasting Hurricanes: Role of the National Hurricane Center by Eva Lipiec and Peter Folger (updated 11 July 2019).

Download CRS_InFocus_Hurricane_Center_11July2019

Here are the first two sections.

Introduction
"The National Hurricane Center (NHC), part of the National Weather Service (NWS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is responsible for forecasting tropical cyclones, including hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean and the eastern Pacific Ocean. The NHC provides estimates of the path of a tropical cyclone (i.e., hurricane track), the intensity, and the size and structure of the storm, as well as predictions of storm surge, rainfall, and even associated tornadoes. Depending on the status of the tropical cyclone, this information may be used to create a hurricane watch or a hurricane warning and public advisories, which are issued on an increasingly frequent basis if a storm strengthens and approaches the U.S. coastline.

How the Process Works
A hurricane forecast involves many components and uses a broad array of resources and capabilities within NOAA and the NWS, all of which must be coordinated and interpreted by the NHC. The process begins with observations: satellites, aircraft, ships, buoys, radar, and other sources provide data used to create storm-track and intensity predictions. Most Atlantic hurricanes, for example, begin to form just west of the African continent over the ocean. NOAA weather satellites primarily provide the remote- sensing observations during the early stages of tropicalstorm development in the eastern Atlantic. NOAA’sGeostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) are stationed over the same location spanning North America (two satellites make up the active GOES constellation, often referred to as GOES East and GOES West) and provide continuous data as the storms form and intensify during their journey across the Atlantic from Africa to North America.

Very useful material - par for the course for the CRS!

Enjoy!

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want." - Bill Watterson (quoted in @CountryLiving via @TheWeek)

Whatever Doesn't Kill You Only Makes You Stronger - Kaveh Madani Paper: 'The Value of Extreme Events: What Doesn't Exterminate Your Water System Makes it More Resilient'

From Kaveh Madani.

The water resurces equivalent of 'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.' "

The Value of Extreme Events: What Doesn't Exterminate Your Water System Makes it More Resilient, Journal of Hydrology, 575 (2019), 269-272.  

Download Extreme_Events_Madani_2019

 

Kaveh included the following note in his email.

 

Dear colleagues,

 

I hope you have had a good summer so far. As you know, my experience in politics was quite "interesting", but I still think my first hand observations were invaluable and would have been impossible without taking that job back in Iran. I hope I can share some of those observations with you through written pieces in the years to come.

 

I have recently written a short discussion note in the J of Hydrology about the value of extreme events for improving the resilience of water resources systems. Essentially, I argue that water is not an urgent topic in the public policy agenda and unless extreme events happen, the political cost of reforms prohibits serious actions. 

 

While extreme events are valuable in this sense and can promote changes, extremes-based management is a risky business as in some cases (e.g. Syria), the system can get out of control. Of course, we need proactive reforms, but they would be impossible if we do not change the sense of urgency among the public. The same argument can be safely applied to many other environmental topics such as climate change. 

 

Enclosed, you can find the discussion paper (also accessible here:. 

Your feedback would be extremely appreciated.

 

Enjoy the rest of your summer.

 

Kaveh

Abstract
Problems have a high rank in decision making when they are both urgent and important. Accordingly, water has not earned the attention it deserves in public policy agenda because under normal circumstances it is not viewed as an urgent matter in the eyes of the public and politicians. By creating a sense of urgency, extreme events such as droughts, floods, conflicts, and migrations can create opportunities for implementing some essential policy reforms that would be politically costly otherwise. So, despite their high short-term costs, extreme natural and societal events have the potential to increase the resilience of water systems in the long run. It is argued here that the societal and political sense of urgency about water must be promoted through public outreach and information dissemination. Otherwise, for useful reforms and long-term improvements, we will rely on costly and risky extreme events that sometimes have the potential to fully collapse the human-natural system-of-systems.

The first few paragraphs:

Addressing Bankruptcy
The global water system is bankrupt with water consumption already
exceeding the accessible renewable water, leading to the overdraft
of non-renewable water resources and ecosystem damages in
many parts of the world. Addressing water bankruptcy requires investment
in both mitigation and adaptation. The former normally involves
efforts that seek to increase the volume of accessible water or
cutting demand through technologic (hard) and sometimes policy (soft)
solutions within the boundaries of water systems. The latter, on the
other hand, involves efforts that are of soft nature and typically out of
the authority of water resource managers. This type of policy and
planning efforts appreciate the nexus of water systems with other systems
such as food, energy, economy, society, and politics.

Example mitigation measures include water storage and diversion,desalination, wastewater recycling, water conservation technology invention, developing drought-resistant crops, improving irrigation efficiency,
raising water prices and removing subsidies, as well as metering
and quota enforcement. Most, if not all, of these measures have been
already proven to be unsustainable when implemented without considering
their long-term impacts and feedbacks (see Bahaddin et al.
(2018) and Mirchi et al. (2012) for a review of some common long-term
and unintended consequences of shortsighted water management solutions).

Adaptation solutions, however, are supposed to be based on a more
comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the complexity of
human-natural system-of-systems (Fig. 1). Adaptation measures do
consider the problems of water sector as products of the complex interrelated
dynamics of a system-of-systems involving human and nature.
Example adaptation measures include national and regional development
plan reforms to make them less water-dependant, economic diversification
and decoupling economic growth or political economy
from water, introduction of alternative jobs and livelihoods to farming,
increased water allocation to ecosystem, revision of food security policies
and changing crop patterns, altering food trade strategies, and
land use amendments.

Enjoy!

"Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." - Unknown (attributed to many, including Friedrich Nietzsche

Paper: 'Planning for Ecological Drought - Integrating Ecosystem Services and Vulnerability Assessment'

I received this paper from Nejem Raheem, whom I knew back at the University of New Mexico. He was interested in water resources and economics and I encouraged him to pursue a PhD in economics instead of getting another Masters degree. He did so, and is now an Associate Professor at Emerson College in Boston. He was one of the authors on a a paper on Defining Ecological Drought for the 21st Century that I posted in July 2017 and the senior author on another paper I posted: A Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Services in Acequia Irrigation Communities of the Upper Rio Grande Watershed. 

Nejem is still working on ecological drought and sent me his most recent paper:

Raheem,N, Cravens A.E.,Cross, M.S., et al. (2019) Planning for Ecological Drought: Integrating Ecosystem Services and Vulnerability Assessment. WIREs Water. e1352. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1352

Download Raheem_ecol_drought

Abstract
As research recognizes the importance of ecological impacts of drought to natural and human communities, drought planning processes need to better incorporate ecological impacts. Drought planning currently recognizes the vulnerability of some ecological impacts from drought (e.g., loss of instream flow affecting fish populations). However, planning often does not identify all the ecological aspects in a landscape that stakeholders value, nor does it examine the extent to which those aspects are vulnerable to drought. One approach for identifying ecological aspects is ecosystem services (ES)—that is, the benefits humans receive from nature. To incorporate ecological impacts into drought planning in the Upper Missouri Headwaters (UMH) region (Montana, USA), we combined ES elicitation using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services and a vulnerability assessment using semi‐structured interviews. We juxtaposed results from the interviews and the ES elicitation to assess which ES might be vulnerable to drought and which impacts from interviews were associated with losses of ES. While both methods suggested common drought vulnerabilities, each method also suggested drought vulnerabilities not reported using the other method. The ES elicitation produced more detail about services present in the UMH ecosystem today while interviews resulted in more discussion about ecological transformation from future droughts. Results suggest that some combination of open‐ended vulnerability assessment methods and ES elicitation using a structured framework can result in greater understanding of ecological drought vulnerability in a given region.

Overlap and exclusion of ES inventory and impacts from vulnerability interviews.

 

Good stuff.....

Enjoy!

 

"From the @ass_deans training manual: Remember it is far safer to do nothing than to take on the status quo and lose. No dean ever loses their job for not being very good, only for offending the wrong people." - @ass_deans