WaterWired

CRS Report: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Annual Appropriations Process and Issues for Congress'

From Anna E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter comes this 21 April 2020 CRS report: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Annual Appropriations Process and Issues for Congress'.

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Download CRS_Rpt_USACE_Ann_App_Prcocess_Issues_Con_21Apr2020

Summary
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is an agency within the Department of Defense with both military and civil works responsibilities. The agency’s civil works activities consist largely of the planning, construction, and operation of water resource projects to maintain navigable channels, reduce the risk of flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress directs USACE’s civil works activities through authorization legislation, annual and supplemental appropriations, and oversight.

Unlike federal funding for highways and municipal water infrastructure, the majority of federal funds provided to USACE are not distributed by formula to states or through competitive grant programs. Instead, USACE generally is directly engaged in the planning and construction of projects. The majority of the agency’s appropriations are used to perform work on geographically specific studies and congressionally authorized projects. Between FY2010 and FY2020, USACE discretionary appropriations, typically funded through Title I of annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts, have ranged from $4.72 billion in FY2013 to $7.65 billion in FY2020. Congress also has provided USACE with emergency supplemental appropriations, most often as part of flood response and recovery efforts (see CRS In Focus IF11435, Supplemental Appropriations for Army Corps Flood Response and Recovery, for more information).

USACE’s annual appropriations process generally involves three major milestones: the President’s budget request, congressional deliberation and enactment of appropriations, and Administration development of a USACE work plan. Each of the milestones is accompanied by various documents, such as USACE budget justifications, congressional conference reports, and USACE work plans.

The process begins with the release of the President’s budget request, typically in early February. The request’s appendix includes funding levels for different USACE accounts (e.g., Investigations, Construction, Operation and Maintenance). USACE also releases more detailed documents (i.e., press book, budget justifications) providing information on the projects that the request would fund. Congress may consider the President’s budget request, stakeholder interests, and other factors when creating an annual Energy and Water Development appropriations bill and its USACE civil works title. In reports accompanying appropriations bills, Congress provides direction to USACE on how to allocate enacted appropriations to various USACE activities and types of projects. In the months following enactment, the Administration develops a work plan that adheres to congressional direction regarding the priorities for the funding provided above the requested amount (e.g., $2.7 billion for 26 categories of USACE activities in FY2020) and the number of new starts (e.g., six new studies and six new construction projects using FY2020 appropriations).

Some USACE-related topics repeatedly arise in congressional appropriations deliberations For example, Congress often considers how to address the increasing maintenance needs of USACE’s aging infrastructure, stakeholder demand for USACE projects, and the number of finalized project studies awaiting construction. Issues for Congress also may include the distribution of appropriations (e.g., activity type, new starts, and geographic distribution) and the level of discretion Congress provides the Administration in allocating USACE’s funding in the work plan.

Enjoy!

"Maps are never value-free images" – John Brian Harley

My Age-O-Meter: 50th Anniversary of Earth Day!

It's the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, so happy 51st Earth Day! Since I was 21 on the first Earth Day then 21 + 50 =......Okay,

I won't bore you with my story of what I did on the first Earth Day in 1970; you can read about it here. Yeah, I helped build a dam.

One thing I learned: don't follow the advice indicated by this graphic from the January 1963 Popular Science. Even in 1970 we knew this was a bad idea - and not because the gravel is unnecessary! 

I also learned that the date for Earth Day was set for 22 April because it is about midway between spring break and the end of the term in American universities. It was envisioned as a holiday on which students could partake in environmental activities. 

So celebrate Earth and do good deed or two. Just keep 6 feet apart from others and wear a mask.

Today I would have been boarding a flight to Virginia to partake in my 50th college reunion at the College of William and Mary. As they say, 'Wait'll next year!".

How's this for an interesting Earth Day factoid. Richard M. Nixon (R) - during whose presidency the EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act were all created - died on this day in 1994. Who would have imagined that? 

Enjoy!

“Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking.” -- H.L. Mencken (tnx @danfagin)

CRS Report: 'Australia - Fires Highlight Government’s Climate Challenge'

CRS folks Bruce Vaughn and Susan G. Chesser authored this InFocus report (11 March 2020): Australia: Fires Highlight Government’s Climate Challenge

Download CRS_InFocus_AU_Fires_Climate_Challenge_11March2020

Overview

The recent devastating bush fires in Australia highlight the country’s growing dilemma over climate change. Australia’s economy remains heavily weighted toward extractive industries, leading to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change. A growing portion of voters see climate change as a threat to Australia’s vital interests. Many are pressuring Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s right of center Liberal-National Party Coalition to take additional steps to reduce emissions and combat climate change.

The Fires

According to the Australian government, “Australia is one of the most fire prone regions in the world.” Nonetheless, the 2019-2020 fires were extraordinary. (See Figure 1.) More than 27.2 million acres of vegetation, 33 people, an estimated one billion animals, and over 2,500 homes were lost to bushfires in Australia in the 2019-2020 fire season. (Fire Season normally lasts from October 1 to March 31.) The area burned is larger than South Korea and 46% larger than the area burned in the Amazon in 2019. Sydney’s air quality became a health risk, and parts of the nation’s capital Canberra had to be evacuated at one point. The Australian army was called to assist firefighters, and the navy evacuated people by sea from coastal communities cut off by fire. The New York Times reported the estimated cost to Australia’s economy to be between $3 and $3.5 billion.

Climate Change and Wildfires in Australia

Several researchers have found that projected climate changes show a trend towards more dangerous fire weather conditions in Australia. The year 2019 was the hottest year on record for Australia. (See Figure 2.) The average daytime maximum temperature in Australia was reportedly 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above average. Australia’s average rainfall in 2019 was the lowest since records began in 1900 and was 40% less than normal. 2019 was also the first year that the hottest and driest years in Australia overlapped.

The Australian government reports that their Forest Fire Danger Index has increased at 16 of 38 sites over the period from 1973 to 2010. According to the Australian government, surface temperatures over land and surrounding seas increased by 3.2℉ since the beginning of the 20th century. The frequency of very warm months has increased, as has average rainfall. More frequent extreme heat and flooding events raise risks to human health and to livestock production. Sea levels vary significantly year-to-year, mostly associated with natural variability, though the rising trend is less than the global average sea level rise. According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, “[c]limate change is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef” due to bleaching during high temperature episodes and severe weather. Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has found that “Australia faces significant environmental and economic impacts from climate change across a number of sectors.”

The Fires' Effect on Political Debate

These developments, particularly the recent fires, appear to be affecting Australians’ attitudes towards climate change. According to a 2019 Lowy poll, Australians ranked climate change as the first of ten possible threats to Australia’s vital interests over the next ten years, and 64% of those polled view climate change as a “critical threat.” This was an increase of six percentage points from 2018 and an 18 point rise since 2014. The Lowy poll also found that 59% of Australians polled believe the opposition Labor Party would do a better job of managing Australia’s response to climate change than the Coalition.

Prime Minister Morrison appears to some analysts to have won the May 2019 election in part because he emphasized the costs of climate action rather than the threat from climate change itself. However, the fires of 2019 and 2020 may have shifted many Australians’ perceptions of the relative costs. According to a News poll, Morrison’s approval rating dropped 8 points from December 2019 to January 2020.

The fires appear to have reignited past debates within the Liberal-National Coalition on climate change policy. In December 2019, the New South Wales Young Liberals called on the government to make changes to address the “extraordinary challenges presented by human-induced climate change.” In February 2020, Morrison reportedly faced opposition from within the Coalition party room over his government’s climate change policy. Several Coalition Members of Parliament (MP) reportedly argued that the Coalition should embrace more ambitious climate change action. A Liberal MP’s February 2020 proposal to establish a dedicated climate change minister was reportedly opposed by National Party members and hardline Liberals. In February 2020, two other Liberal MPs declared that the government should not support new coal-fired power stations. Others argued against adopting “reactionary” climate policies in response to the bushfire crisis.

By January 2020, Morrison, who had previously appeared reluctant to discuss the link between climate change and the fires, stated that the government could evolve its policies in order to reduce emissions but without putting additional costs on Australians or risking hurting resource industries.

Current opposition Labor Party Leader Anthony Albanese has emphasized the need to create clean energy jobs while advocating for a low carbon future. The Labor Party favors more aggressive emissions reductions targets and has reaffirmed its commitment to reach zero net emissions by 2050. The Australia Greens party has called for Australia to become a leader in climate action while developing a renewable energy economy. Greens Parliamentary Leader Adam Bandt reportedly will advocate for a Green New Deal and would phase out fossil fuel extraction in Australia.

Skipping a few paragraphs...

U.S. Linkages

The increasing intensity of Australia’s fire season and resulting political challenges have direct and indirect impacts on the United States. For example, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand have exchanged firefighting assistance for many years. In 2019, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service wildfire personnel were sent to Australia to assist with wildfire suppression. In addition, three American firefighters working for Coulson Aviation, a private contractor, were killed when their air tanker crashed while on a fire fighting mission in Australia. In 2018, Australian and New Zealand wildfire management personnel were sent to assist with wildfire suppression in California. As fire seasons lengthen and grow in intensity, increased demand for this shared capability may strain existing capabilities.

Australia’s experience with the political debate over costs of mitigation vs. risk of continued climate change may help inform Congress’ deliberations over how to address the issue. While the risks and the drivers may be different, intensifying wildfire seasons also are a U.S. concern. For example, an April 2019 report from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s strike force office on “Wildfires and Climate Change” found that “climate change is a core driver of heightened wildfire risk.”

Lots packed into a small space - be sure to read the material I skipped.

Enjoy!

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A New Year's Day Tribute to 'Good Guy' John W. Fordham, R.I.P.

Sometimes I use New Year's Day to remember something I forgot to do in the previous year. This is one of those times but at least I can rectify my omission. What follows was originally written in August 2019. Why I delayed its publication is beyond me, but a recent card from John's widow Prella spurred this long-delayed remembrance. Here goes...

I got the news the other day from a Facebook post by Alan McKay: John Fordham had died with his family present at his home in Carlsbad, CA. Alan went on to say that John was 'one of the good guys'. My feelings exactly.

I usually write obituaries and recollections about people like Stan Davis, Tom Prickett, et al. - folks who were well-known to WaterWonks, water buffaloes, and fellow travelers.

John William Fordham? Not so much, although he was well-known to and respected by the Nevada water community. Yes, he was one of the good guys who always deflected praise and was a contemporary of mine (five years older).  John was a civil engineer - BS and MS from the University of Nevada-Reno, specializing in hydrology and water resources management. He undoubtedly had as much (if not more) influence on my early professional development than the aforementioned men.

We met in July 1976 (or maybe it was May, when I flew to Reno for an interview) at the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in Reno, my first job as a freshly-minted PhD from the University of Arizona. I was in one of DRI's centers, the Center for Water Resources Research, later changed to Water Resources Center (now the Hydrologic Sciences Center).

Since that was my first 'real' job (at $17,286 per year!) John and his academic mentor, Dr. Vulli Gupta, took it upon themselves to clue me in. Vulli was more about academics (we started writing an (unfinished) introductory hydrology textbook) and John was more about the nuts-and-bolts of how the Center ran, who did what, Nevada's water resources, etc. John was not the only who performed this function but I soon learned that he seemed to know about what (and who) worked and what (or who) didn't. He was also not a bullshitter. He was always there to help anyone.

I also came to realize that he knew a lot about hydrology, Nevada water and its idiosyncrasies, who had it in for the Center and all the other stuff. Turns out that his cousin Roland Westergard was the State Engineer. I am unsure that was a good thing.

My respect for John grew after the death of George Burke Maxey in early 1977. Burke was a legendary hydrogeologist who had been the only head of the WRC. When an outsider was brought in to replace Burke, John and a few others were viewed as being disloyal and/or too much oriented to the 'old ways', shunted aside, and were no longer in the power structure. John accepted this in stride and continued to do what he was asked and did what needed to be done. He was the consummate 'good soldier'.

John was also a darn good hydrologist/civil engineer. I learned quite a bit about surface water hydrology from him. He taught me much about flash floods, water quality, dams, water law and rights, ET. He was a practitioner, not a researcher (although most of us knew he wanted to finish his PhD). Vulli would bug him to no avail (I think John was in the 'ABD' classification).

Flash forward to late December 2019 when Prella Fordham's annual holiday card arrived. I had never written her abou John's death. In my response to her card, I wrote that when I thought of John three things came to mind:

1) he was an 'engineer's engineer' - other would seek his advice/counsel;

2) he put his organization's interests above his own; and

3) he could always be counted upon to do what he was asked, and to do it right, on time.

And Alan McKay's assessment was right: he was truly one of the good guys.

My only regret: I never told him any of the above while he was alive - how much I appreciated him and valued his help.

My funniest remembrance of John? At one time our offices were adjacent. One day in the early 1980s we had a lively discussion about CDs. We must have been engaged for 5-10 minutes before we each realized that I meant 'compact discs' and he meant 'certificates of deposit'.

Yes, John, I miss you (especially the technical sessions at Trader Dick's in the old Nugget). I learned a lot about fluid flow at those tutorials. 

You can read his obituary here.

Note: Comsider a donation to the Fordham Family Civil Engineering Scholarship Endowment #175449 with checks payable to UNR Foundation/0162, 1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno, NV, 89557 https://www.unr.edu/giving/foundation

"C'mon! You know better than that!" - John W. Fordham (said to me on more than one occasion)

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. Opines: The Special Master's Report on Florida v. Georgia

Jesse James Richardson, Jr., Professor of Law at West Virginia University's College of Law, is one of the smartest water lawyers I know. He is also a delightful speaker so if you get a chance to hear him speak, do so.

Here's a piece he wrote after reading the Report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia water dispute. He gave me permission to post it. I just added the report itself, the ACF basin graphic, Jesse' picture, and the aphorism at the bottom.

Download Report_SpecialMaster_FL_v_GA_11Dec2019

As a Christmas present to myself, I read the report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia yesterday. In summary, the Special Master recommends denying Florida's request for a decree because it has not proved the elements necessary to obtain relief. Florida points to the oyster fishery collapse as the harm, but the Special Master found that Florida failed to prove that Georgia caused the collapse. The collapse was likely caused, according to the Special Master, by frequent droughts, over-harvesting, and climate change.

 

In addition, the Special Master found that Georgia's use was not unreasonable or inequitable. Finally, the Special Master determined that the benefits of the apportionment would not substantially outweigh the harms. This is a good recommendation for agriculture, since the Special Master recognizes agricultural as a reasonable use generating "substantial benefits". However, the recommendation could prove to be ominous for rural states since the Special Master considered proportional population and economic production, even while decrying how relying on these measures too much would mean that the "larger state always win".

 

The recommendation is likely bad for environmental groups. Environmental benefits and costs appeared to be given minimal weight, especially when compared with tangible economic benefits and costs.

 

I think SCOTUS will accept these recommendations. The recommendations and very methodical and well supported. Since the Special Master has seen the witnesses and has developed the facts, it would be difficult to reject such well supported findings.

 

Overall, Several interesting points in the report.

 

(1) The Special Master thought it was important that Florida only presented evidence of harm during drought years. It was important to the findings that no harm was alleged during normal to above normal rainfall years. That seems odd to mean. Wouldn't one expect the harm to occur during drought years? I think the point was that the drought caused the damages, not Georgia's pumping. However, but for the the pumping of Georgia, would damages have occurred?

 

(2) The Special Master was very critical of the experts for Florida. Their testimony, in his opinion, failed to specially address harm to individual fish species. Florida's experts relied on a model, many of the assumptions of which the special master viewed skeptically, at best. Georgia's experts, on the other hand, used actual data from on-site meters and the like, which the Special Master viewed favorably. Note that on some issues, experts for both sides used models. The Special Master viewed the Georgia experts as more persuasive on those issues as well.

 

Note that the Special Master seemed to dismiss the testimony of one of Florida's experts because the expert failed to mention the weaknesses of the model until questioned on cross-examination. That expert also failed to disclose several results that did not support his conclusions.

 

In addition, Georgia's experts attacked Florida's data with specificity while Florida's experts offered only generalized attacks. For example, one expert challenged the irrigated acreage totals presented by Georgia, but never estimated how much acreage was omitted.

 

(3) The Special Master also found that Georgia's consumptive use was reasonable. As to the amount of consumptive use, this is the area where Florida used rainfall runoff models while Georgia's experts used number of irrigated acres and metering results. The Special Master found the Georgia method more reliable.

 

Although emphasizing that relying on this fact as dispositive would make reduce equitable apportionment analysis to a "rigid rule whereby the larger state always wins", the Special Master nonetheless seemed to place great weight on the comparison between the proportion of population (92%), employment (96%) and gross regional product (99%) attributable to Georgia and the consumption of state line flows (up to 17.4%, depending on how calculated). This seems odd to me as well. Percentage of population, etc. is all well and good, but the percentage of state line flows consumed may well need to be limited to a very small proportion of the water. 

 

(4) This Special Master also disagreed with the prior Special Master with respect to Georgia's conservation of water. The Special Master noted that, despite a substantial increase in population, Georgia uses much less water than it did 30 years ago, but failed to mention that that fact is true across the country due to increased efficiencies (low-flow toilets, more efficient irrigation, etc.).

 

"Drinking and other domestic purposes are the highest uses of water".  Agricultural uses of water in Georgia provide "substantial benefits". The special master also found the consumption "reasonable". However, agricultural use of water during drought was called out as "only increasing" and "not effectively curbed", making the question "to what extent the two states should share the burden of drought". The Special Master answered that question by, in a very perfunctory manner, applying the doctrine of reasonable use, and finding Georgia's use reasonable.

 

(5) The Special Master also found that even if the Corps of Engineers would increase flows into Florida, the impact would be minimal. Therefore, Florida would see "no appreciable benefit from a decree".

 

(6) Finally, the Special Master found that the potential harms to Georgia of apportionment would substantially outweigh the benefits to Florida. The Special Master specifically limited his analysis to marginal costs and marginal benefits, drawing approval from economists everywhere. The cost of generating increasing the flow by 801 cfs during summers during dry years would cost $100 million. The Apalachicola fishing industry generates "only" $11.7 million per year and the oyster industry "only" $6.6 million per year before the collapse. This difference appeared to be dispositive.

 

Enjoy!

"August in Florida is God's way of reminding us who's in charge." - Blaize Clement