A bill to allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Senate bill S. 2039 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators from North Dakota Conrad and Hoeven, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent in January of this year. This bill will provide a great deal of help to the citizens of our State.

The text of S. 2039 allows for a process of building permanent levees on Federal land in North Dakota, with the approval of FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers. I want to highlight the unique situation we have in North Dakota, and this legislation intends to address just that.

First of all, Fargo, North Dakota. It has faced repeated flooding along the Red River, which runs through the heart of the city. The city has constructed a permanent levee that runs along as much of the river as possible. However, over the years, some properties have been bought out along the riverbank with Federal funds.

As a result, we have a patchwork of properties that exist along this levee system with gaps in the system. Recurring flooding along the Red River requires temporary levees to go up nearly every year only to be taken down, and what happens, repeatedly, over and over, is a taxpayer waste of money.

Minot, North Dakota, will have the same problem. As my colleagues know, Minot faced enormous flooding last spring. Thousands of homes were lost, and the community sustained hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The city of Minot now plans to rebuild a major new flood protection system, including rebuilding the levees that were in place. This is in the middle of the city along the Souris River. This means that Minot will face the same frustration and expense of constructing and removing temporary levees year after year, just as it is in Fargo.

The solution is to simply permit levee construction on federally purchased property in these areas of North Dakota, with the approval of FEMA and the Corps. It's important to note that in both Fargo and Minot, a levee will be in place regardless of this legislation.

What this commonsense bill is trying to prevent is the absurdity and the expense to taxpayers of building and then taking down a temporary levee every year every time there's a flood.

This bill does contain important restrictions to ensure undue Federal costs are not incurred. Under this bill, before approving any project, FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers must first determine that the levee will be effective in mitigating against the flood risk versus having an open floodplain, that permanent levee flood protection would be the most cost effective measure to protect against flood risk and minimize the future cost to the Federal Government, and also, that the State or local government seeking to build the levee has provided adequate, detailed plans for maintenance of the proposed levee and the State or local government has a detailed finance plan to pay for it.

All of the above must be demonstrated before the construction plan can be approved. Furthermore, this Federal review itself must be paid for entirely by the local or State government.

Mr. Speaker, the construction of a permanent levee is far more fiscally responsible than the annual costs associated each year with tearing down, building and tearing down these temporary levees. Most importantly, this legislation eliminates the cost that FEMA and the Corps of Engineers have already incurred time and time again as they're forced to build these and tear them down, the temporary levees in the State of North Dakota.

This legislation provides better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It provides sound protections against future Federal expense, and it will save the local, State and Federal Government money. Most importantly, it will ensure better flood protection for the communities of Minot and Fargo in North Dakota.

I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to just really make this perfectly clear. This is not affecting the Missouri River. This is focused on a very flat area in the eastern part of our State. As was mentioned, this came through the Senate with unanimous consent. Senators along the Missouri River from North Dakota all the way down were supportive of this.

The essence of this problem is that we have a levee. This is a downtown levee that's in a city, and there are gaps there. And what happens is when there's a flood--and every year we have a recurring flood--a temporary levee is put in. Trucks come in and clays come in, it tears it up, and they build it, and as soon as that's done, it's all torn down again. This is disruptive, and it impacts the natural habitat there. That is where this is focused to be.

The other thing that is really important here that I would like to stress, this legislation requires the Corps of Engineers to approve it. Those of us who have been dealing with the Missouri River know the Corps management would not approve of anything that would disrupt the Missouri waterway all the way down.

Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent thing. The reason it's urgent is our State has had 10,000 people dislocated from 4,000 homes, and these people had the uncertainty of not knowing where they can rebuild, what they can do. This will help the city of Minot move forward with their housing needs. There are 1,400 families that are currently not back in their homes. They're living in trailers, living with neighbors and living with friends. They're not sure when these temporary levees go down what they should do next. That's really the urgency of this bill, and why that's why it's before you today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I mean, these are exactly why we need to do this. I mean, there's passion when it comes to floods, passion when it comes to levees. What concerns me is people don't understand probably what the Red River Valley is like. This is flat. When there's a break in the levee, this is not just a few homes, this will be miles and miles and miles.

I want to be very clear: the levee will be there, it's going to be there. The only thing we're doing here is, right now, the Federal Government, when there is a flood, pays for this. The Federal Government shares in the cost to build a temporary levee. A month later, they pay for it to tear it down--time and time again.

If you're concerned about the environment or you're concerned about disruption, this is where we need to have that part of a levee system, a permanent levee system that's already in place that has very little impact on the environment.

As we can work through these commonsense things, these commonsense solutions, this will help build a relationship so we can solve these problems and move longer term, both in flood protection as well as the Missouri River.

Again, just to reiterate that point: this bill has nothing to do with the Missouri River--in fact, it did pass under unanimous consent in the Senate, with the Senators up and down Missouri supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, again, Members of the assembly here: there are 1,400 people in Minot that aren't living in their homes--there are 1,400 families, not people. Every year creates an uneasiness on the people that live in this flat valley, in the Red River Valley. This is an important bill. It's critical for long-term planning and clearly will save not only the Federal Government money, but it will save the local government money. It also will save all the volunteer time that goes into building a levee, taking a levee down.

I do believe if you saw the area where this will go, you would agree that a permanent levee system that ties into the landscaping would really be a positive impact on the wildlife and the habitat in those areas.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

With respect to the gentleman from North Dakota, there are some differences on this bill.

I rise to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. 2039, a bill that would increase the likelihood of flooding along the Missouri River that impacts several States, putting millions of people at risk. This legislation has not had a hearing in either the House or the Senate, nor has the public or impacted federal agencies had an opportunity to weigh in.

The bill goes against longstanding Federal policy that would still apply to the other 49 States--just not North Dakota. Once Federal funds are used to relocate communities and buildings out of floodplains, that land is meant to be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational or wetlands management practices. This bill would stop that from happening in North Dakota, despite the fact that the issue was already addressed with specific allowances for communities in North Dakota in the recently signed into law Biggert-Waters Flood Reform Act of 2012. This bill that's on the floor today doesn't require local communities to reimburse the Federal Government and taxpayers for those previous buyouts.

Without hearings, it's hard to understand why S. 2039 is even necessary. Mr. Speaker, floods are the most frequently occurring natural disaster in this Nation. They happen in all 50 States. According to NOAA, there has been a steady increase in the U.S. of extreme flooding events. In fact, my home State of Missouri has had its fair share. In 2008, we faced a 200-year flood. In 1993, it was a 500- year flood. We're talking about incredibly abnormal levels of flooding that would only be exacerbated by this bill.

Last year, in St. Louis, we faced millions of dollars in losses because of weeks upon weeks of flooding. Again, it was a flood that the Army Corps of Engineers expects to occur every 10 to 25 years. River barge traffic, transporting billions in crops, were delayed. Riverboat casinos were closed for 6 to 8 weeks. Estimates of farmland crop damage was as high as $2 billion.

Missouri was not the only State to suffer. Kentucky saw $5 million in damage, and 1,300 homes around Memphis were damaged. Mississippi suffered hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. This devastation was not from rainfall in Missouri or in the other States affected. It was created by runoff a thousand miles north in North Dakota.

Increased rainfall in that State leads to flooding downstream in my State and others. This bill would allow levees to be created that would greatly increase the chances of that flooding. Rather than exempting North Dakota from the Stafford Act, we should be returning North Dakota to a natural state of marshes and wetlands along the river. These areas absorb significant amounts of water, slow runoff water and minimize the frequency that streams and rivers reach catastrophic flood levels.

Rather than protecting the environment and letting nature do what it is designed to do, this bill would set precedent for other States-- increasing catastrophic flood levels across the country and devastating our Nation's businesses, farms and infrastructure.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, again, I think we're seeing the complexity of this issue.

I just want to follow up on the gentleman from Oregon's remarks, that the groups that have weighed in on this bill, from taxpayer groups on the conservative side, to professional managers, to more progressive environmental groups have weighed in against this bill.

Under the previously agreed general leave request, I want to include letters and statements in opposition to S. 2039 from over 30 national and State organizations, including the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Rivers, the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, and Republicans for Environmental Protection--not a list of groups you often see on the same page, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Taxpayers for Commonsense, R Street, National Taxpayers

Union,

July 23, 2012.

Dear Representative: We are strongly opposed to S. 2039, a

bill that is on the suspension calendar for a vote today.

This bill would allow communities in North Dakota to

construct levees on land that was so flood-prone that federal

taxpayers bought out the property owners on the condition of

no future development Construction of the levees will

inevitably lead to more high risk development and future

costs to taxpayers. In short, the taxpayer will be forced to

pay twice or more.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation

Grant Program (HMGP) enables voluntary buy-outs of frequently

flooded property, and to prevent future losses (and costs to

the federal government) the communities agree not to develop

the property in the future.

Instead of rectifying specific instances where problems

with the program may have arisen, or pursuing other

solutions, this bill applies broadly across the state of

North Dakota. In fact, while this legislation is specifically

targeted at North Dakota, the bill would set a precedent that

could have national implications. And it would trigger

potentially significant future costs that would be avoided by

simply not building on the land as was originally agreed. In

fact, taxpayers would be subsidizing the levee construction

by purchasing the land, which would enable the future levee

project and the local cost-sharing partner to avoid real

estate fees. A costly pattern could develop: the federal

taxpayer buys the property and a short while later the

community opts out of the program and builds a levee on the

``free'' land.

We urge you to oppose S. 2039. This controversial bill

should not have been placed on the suspension calendar and

should not be approved. For more information contact Steve

Ellis at 202-546-8500 x126 or steve,taxpayer.net.

Sincerely,

Stephen Ellis,

Vice President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Eli Lehrer,

President, R Street.

Andrew Moylan,

Vice President of Government Affairs National Taxpayers

Union.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their help in passing S. 2039 by unanimous consent last month. This bill, which establishes a pilot program in North Dakota, will provide a great deal of help to citizens in my State.

I sponsored this legislation because Federal policy has stood in the way of flood protection measures necessary for communities in North Dakota. I want to highlight a couple of situations, one in Fargo and one in Minot, that illustrate the need for this bill.

First, Fargo, ND, has faced repeated flooding in the Red River, which runs through the heart of the city. The city has constructed a permanent levee to run along as much of the river as possible. However, over the years, some properties along the river bank were bought out using funds from FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. HMGP guidelines prohibit the construction of any structure, including a levee, on land bought out under the program. So as a result, Fargo's levee stops every time it comes up to HMGP land. When the waters rise, the city builds a temporary extension of its levee that goes over the HMGP land and connects to the next section of the permanent levee, and when the waters recede, the city has to take down the temporary levee to remain in compliance with the HMGP no-construction policy. Year after year, Fargo has constructed and then removed several temporary levees at great expense and for no apparent reason other than the letter of the HMGP law.

Second, Minot, ND, is about to run into the same problem currently facing Fargo. As my colleagues know, Minot faced enormous flooding during the summer of 2011, losing thousands of homes and sustaining hundreds of millions in damages. In response, the city plans to build a major new flood protection system, including levees through the middle of town along the river. In order to build that system, Minot will have to buy out dozens of properties and create space for a levee. The Federal Government will make money available through the HMGP program for property buyouts, but we are unable to use it if spending it precludes construction of a levee on these properties.

In both cases, the solution is simply to permit levee construction on property purchased with HMGP funds. HMGP restrictions on construction were intended to ensure that the Federal Government would not be on the hook to pay for future flood damages on property it had bought out. For the most part, that makes sense. But when a community wants to add flood protection in the form of a levee, it should be allowed to do so. A levee across HMGP-purchased land does not create future liabilities for the Federal Government; instead, it increases flood protection for local residents--something that will save the government money in future flood situations.

The text of S. 2039 allows for levee construction on North Dakota land purchased through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The legislation directs the FEMA Administrator to approve construction of a levee on HMGP land after the Administrator determines that the levee would provide better flood risk mitigation than maintaining the property as open space. The Administrator is also directed to ensure that the levee would comply with relevant levee construction and maintenance standards and would minimize future costs to the Federal Government.

And I would like to put particular emphasis on the subject of costs to the Federal Government. This legislation does not affect the amounts of money provided under the HMGP program. It does, however, allow communities like Minot to use HMGP dollars more efficiently by permitting property buyouts to be linked with new flood protection plans. The legislation eliminates the costs FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers incur every time they are forced to build and then tear down temporary levees on HMGP properties. Finally, the legislation ensures that any costs associated with the process the FEMA Administrator and the Army Corps Chief of Engineers use to approve levee construction are borne by the State, local, or tribal government requesting the levee. Any Federal funds approved elsewhere of course remain available for levee construction and are not affected by this legislation.

S. 2039 has moved on to the House of Representatives where I hope it can be approved expeditiously and sent to the President. The bill will provide important benefits to the people of Fargo, Minot, Devils Lake, and other North Dakota communities facing repeated flood risks. I thank my colleagues for their support of this common sense legislation, and I hope it can be an example of how to improve flood protection nationwide.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership on this issue. He comes from an area that has seen its own devastations in terms of flood.

We're talking about a river system where we have engineered the area, and we have been fighting for years to try and attain an appropriate balance.

This is not a fiscally responsible approach. It's interesting that it is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, the American Conservative Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who have joined in common cause with a wide array of environmental organizations, as well as the professionals who deal with the management of floodplains, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and a vast array of businesses, particularly those that are involved with the insurance and reinsurance. This is a prescription for disaster.

Now, bear in mind that in the transportation bill--recently approved--there were proposals that were part of the flood issue that were for five parcels. This legislation--that as my

friend from St. Louis points out has never had a hearing--would open it up to some 37,000 units of land in North Dakota. It doesn't restrict it.

Additionally, it doesn't require that the Federal Government--that paid for this land to be taken and put in a natural state where it could absorb the floodplain, the floodwaters--that they get this for free.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've worked in flood insurance reform now for over 10 years. The last major flood insurance bill I was coauthor with my good friend, Doug Bereuter. We worked hard to try and make sure that we weren't going to subsidize people to live in places where nature has shown repeatedly that they don't belong, and that we weren't going to be in a situation where one part of the Federal Government subsidizes to move the problem downstream.

What we see repeatedly is that, with major river systems that are fortified, that we try and fight against nature by putting in a series of levees. What it does is it channels that water, it accelerates and it moves it downstream and actually makes flooding worse.

Now, it also, in a very perverse way, increases the risk in some of these areas that get levees, because ultimately there are floods. When you put a levee in, you give the illusion of safety, and then there's more development behind the levee. So instead of having natural area absorbing the runoff and avoiding loss--because the taxpayers are now off the hook for loss in these areas that we have purchased and returned to a natural state--then you have the cycle repeating.

There's a reason this vast array of organizations are opposed to it. It's not environmentally sound; it's not fiscally sound; it violates important principles of flood control; it's going to make it harder for people. Bear in mind, these parcels were voluntarily purchased, but are people going to give up land in the future if it might be subject to a levee and development and a repetition of flooding? I think not.

So I would really hope that my colleagues pay careful attention to this legislation. Look at the vast array of groups and organizations that are opposed to it. Question why it is coming to the floor without ever having a hearing. And most important, look at the devastation that will occur if we move away from these established principles. Listen to the floodplain managers. Listen to the environmentalists. Listen to the taxpayer advocates. Protect the system. Reject this ill-conceived measure.

Groups Opposed to S. 2039

Taxpayers for Common Sense; R Street; National Taxpayers

Union; SmarterSafer.org; American Consumer Institute;

American Conservative Union; Competitive Enterprise

Institute; Less Government; Association of Bermuda Insurers

and Reinsurers; National Association of Mutual Insurance

Companies; National Flood Determination Association;

Reinsurance Association of America; National Leased Housing

Association; Association of State Flood Plain Managers.

Institute for Liberty; National Fire Protection

Association; Friends of the Earth; American Rivers; Ceres;

Defenders of Wildlife; Environmental Defense Fund; National

Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy; Republicans for

Environmental Protection; Sierra Club; Clean Air-Cool Planet;

ConservAmerica; Association of State Wetland Managers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express some concerns regarding S. 2039, introduced by Sen. Hoeven, and sent to this body after unanimous consent in the Senate. I am concerned that this language, though well intentioned, is vague and could potentially result in negative consequences downstream, should this language be signed into law.

I remain concerned that the language could be applied to rivers beyond the Souris and the Red, without explicit Congressional intent. There is potential, although small, for levee construction to take place up and down the stretch of Missouri River that runs through North Dakota, resulting in negative consequences throughout the Missouri River basin.

I am comforted by the fact that there seems to be a rigorous FEMA review and approval process for construction of these levees, and I trust that the author's intentions are to allow for construction of new levees along only the Souris River and the Red River at specified locations. I appreciate the steps taken by the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg, to address these concerns and to make very clear for future reference that Congressional intent is to show that this legislation is intended to apply only to locations along the Souris and Red Rivers.

Mr. Speaker, our nation has gone too long without improving our levee systems. I do applaud the efforts to allow municipalities to take into their own hands efforts to rehabilitate systems. At the same time, it is important that they meet all necessary guidelines and do not injure other states and communities along a river bank.

I look forward to continuing this important conversation with the gentlemen from North Dakota.