USBR Tradeoff DA



USBR Tradeoff DAOFFUSBR DAUnexpected new spending overstretches infrastructure maintenance capacity---causes a surge of structural failuresGrayford Payne 19, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration, and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Needs,” 7/24/19, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Natural Resources, US House of Representatives, ’s inventory of assets includes 492 dams and 338 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 140 million acre-feet throughout the 17 Western States. Our dams and reservoirs, water conveyance systems, and power generating facilities are integral components of the Nation’s infrastructure. Reclamation constructed many of these facilities early in the 20th century, but today, approximately two-thirds of these facilities, while still owned by the federal government, are now operated as “transferred works”, operated and maintained under a transfer agreement by local non-Federal operating entities who derive the direct benefits these features provide.This infrastructure and the partnerships that sustain it are key to Reclamation’s continued success. Assuring the benefits that these structures provide is among the significant challenges facing Reclamation and its operating partners.As the largest supplier and manager of water in the nation and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power, Reclamation’s projects and programs are foundational to driving and maintaining economic growth in hundreds of watershed basins throughout the United States. Reclamation owns 76 power plants, and overall, Reclamation’s water, power and recreation activities support $62.7 billion in national economic activity and support 457,754 jobs. 1History and Status of The Reclamation FundThe Reclamation Fund (Fund) was established in the Reclamation Act of 1902 (Pub.L. 57-161), which also established the United States Reclamation Service within the U.S. Geological Survey at the Department of the Interior. The Fund was intended for “the examination and survey for and the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the said States and Territories, and for the payment of all other expenditures provided for in this Act,” (43 U.S.C §391). Initially the Fund was designed to be a revolving account, supported by proceeds from sales of public lands and was later augmented by a percentage of the onshore royalties from oil, gas, and other mineral leases on Federal lands, collections from projects, and from other sources.By 1910 it became clear the revolving fund would not have enough receipts to pay for normal operating expenses as well as planned and ongoing projects. In 1910 and 1930, Congress authorized major deposits into the Reclamation Fund. In 1914, Congress amended the Reclamation Act to require all spending from the Fund be subject to the annual appropriations process, which the Administration believes provides proper oversight and fiscal constraint.In 1928, Congress authorized construction of Hoover Dam and Powerplant to be financed from the General Fund rather than the Reclamation Fund. By the end of the 1930s, many major Reclamation projects under construction were financed by monies from the General Fund. Since that time, including in recent decades, billions of dollars of Reclamation projects have been appropriated out of the general treasury (rather than from the Reclamation fund). Had these projects been appropriated out of the Reclamation fund, its balances would be significantly lower.Today, deposits into the Reclamation Fund come from public land sales, Reclamation project repayments, water contracts, power revenues, and onshore natural resource and mineral royalties. These deposits do not represent complete income to the Government from these sources but only the percentage of the revenue authorized by law to be deposited in the Reclamation Fund.Beginning in fiscal year 1978, Reclamation’s power marketing function was transferred to the Department of Energy. Since then, funds have been appropriated from the Reclamation Fund to the Department of Energy for the Western Area Power Administration. Receipts that are not appropriated remain in the Fund as unappropriated receipts. Balances in the Reclamation Fund are not available for Reclamation program expenditures unless Congress appropriates funds in annual appropriations acts. Congress retains discretion to appropriate money from the fund for Bureau of Reclamation projects every year.[[TABLE OMITTED]]At the end of fiscal year 2012, the unappropriated receipts balance remaining in the Reclamation Fund was approximately $10.8 billion; by the end of fiscal year 2018, the balance was $16.6 billion. The Omnibus Lands Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) established the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund in the Treasury. P.L. 111-11 provides that annually, from fiscal years 2020 through 2029, $120 million of funds (if available) that would otherwise be deposited into the Reclamation Fund instead be available for Indian water right settlement construction efforts without further appropriation.Importance of the Reclamation Fund in Modernizing Reclamation’s InfrastructureReclamation’s dams, water conveyance systems, and power generating facilities are integral components of our Nation’s infrastructure. Effectively managing our infrastructure and the benefits these structures provide is among the significant challenges facing Reclamation.Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and approximately 90 percent of the dams were built before adoption of currently used, state-of-theart design and construction practices. Of the 492 dams in Reclamation’s inventory, our Dam Safety Program has identified 363 high and significant hazard dams, where there is potential for loss of life and/or significant economic damage if those dams were to experience significant structural failures. Reclamation evaluates dams to address new hydrologic or seismic data, or changes in state-of-the-art criteria deemed necessary for safety purposes to ensure that risks do not exceed current Reclamation public protection guidelines.Reclamation released an Infrastructure Investment Strategy in 2015, which initially focused on improving the quality of Major Rehabilitation and Replacement (MR&R) data at Reclamation facilities. MR&R needs include all extraordinary maintenance, safety of dams modifications, and deferred maintenance at all Reclamation facilities regardless of the source of funding. The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9), enacted in March 2019, requires categorization of repair needs and the regular reporting of information related to Reclamation’s investments in its infrastructure, for both reserved and transferred works, to Congress. The MR&R data being collected will enable Reclamation to meet this requirement. The Fiscal Year 2020 budget for Reclamation requests appropriations for specific projects for Extraordinary Maintenance (XM) activities across Reclamation. Reclamation’s XM request is part of its overall Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments, condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment, and strategic collaboration to better inform and improve the management of its assets and deal with its infrastructure maintenance challenges. Through this strategy, Reclamation has been successful in ensuring proper maintenance of our facilities. For example, over the previous year, Reclamation has continually maintained over 81% of our facilities in good condition. Additional XM items are directly funded by revenues, customers, or other Federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration).It’s funded sufficiently now, but water protection trades offTony Willardson 19, Executive Director of the Western States Water Council, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Funding Needs,” Testimony of the Western States Water Council, Submitted to the House Committee on Natural Resources Oversight Subcommittee, we benefit from past public and private investments in the wise conservation, use and management of our water resources. Similarly, the well-being of future generations will depend on our investments in developing and protecting our water resources.Federal participation in funding projects and programs is appropriate under a number of circumstances, particularly where the federal government is a direct or indirect beneficiary, where the federal government is in the best position to finance and then recover costs from beneficiaries, or where the federal government has recognized or created a right, such as to clean and safe drinking water, or where the federal government has made promises, such as tribal treaties and water rights settlements that are both a legal and ethical obligation.II. THE RECLAMATION FUNDRecognizing the importance of water to the development of the arid West, the Congress passed the Reclamation Act on June 17, 1902. It provided that monies be “reserved, set aside, and appropriated as a special fund in the Treasury to be known as the ‘reclamation fund,’ to be used in the examination and survey for and the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of water for the reclamation of arid and semiarid land...” in the seventeen western states, to be continually invested and reinvested.President Theodore Roosevelt stated, “The work of the Reclamation Service in developing the larger opportunities of the western half of our country for irrigation is more important than almost any other movement. The constant purpose of the Government in connection with the Reclamation Service has been to use the water resources of the public lands for the ultimate greatest good of the greatest number; in other words, to put upon the land permanent homemakers, to use and develop it for themselves and for their children and children’s children....” 9Under the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Reclamation Fund was envisioned as the principle means to finance federal western water and power projects with revenues from western resources. Its receipts are derived from water and power sales, project repayments, certain receipts from public land sales, leases and rentals in the 17 western states, as well as certain oil and mineral-related royalties – but these receipts are only available for discretionary federal expenditures pursuant to annual appropriation acts. This includes construction and operational expenditures of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Marketing Administration.The Reclamation Fund was originally designed to fund the development of authorized irrigation projects on the arid and semiarid lands of the 17 western states. However, receipts were not sufficient to fund early Reclamation projects, such as the Grand Coulee and Hoover Dams.The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provided for the deposit of receipts from natural resource royalties into the Reclamation Fund. Originally over 50% of receipts, in 1976 that amount was reduced to 40% of federal royalty payments from the production of oil, gas, coal, potassium, and other minerals on federal lands. Such payments currently account for more than half the Fund’s receipts. In recent years, these receipts have also increased significantly. 10 According to the Administration’s FY2020 budget request, actual receipts accruing to the Reclamation Fund from various sources were $1.842 billion for FY2018 (compared to estimated receipts of $1.702 billion), with FY2019 estimated receipts of $3.321 billion and $2.583 billion for FY2020. By way of comparison, actual appropriations from the Reclamation Fund were $1.233 billion for FY2018, and estimated appropriations are $1.308 billion for FY2019, with the President’s budget request of $885 million for FY2020. 11The unobligated balance in the Reclamation Fund at the end of FY2018 was $16.63 billion, and an estimated balance at the end of FY2019 of $18.643 billion and FY2020 of $20.341 billion.12This unobligated balance continues to grow as appropriated funds are substantially less than receipts. The unobligated figure gets larger and larger, but the money in the Reclamation Fund is in fact spent elsewhere for other federal purposes contrary to the Congress’ original intent. Any unobligated balance essentially reduces federal borrowing to finance other federal expenditures. While Congress, by legislation, dedicated 10% of federal mineral leasing revenues for the Treasury, it has effectively taken much more. You could say that Congress has borrowed the “golden egg” and left the goose sitting on a Treasury I.O.U.The Council has long called for the Congress to investigate the advantages of converting the Reclamation Fund from a special Treasury account to a true revolving trust fund with annual receipts appropriated for authorized purposes in the year following their deposit (similar to some other federal authorities and trust accounts).13Fully appropriating Reclamation Fund receipts for current and future authorized purposes would expedite completion of delayed projects, fund deferred maintenance, repair and replacement expenditures, expedite dam safety work and otherwise support expenditures for essential water and power development, environmental restoration and water conservation projects and programs. One advantage of a revolving fund, with respect to project operation and maintenance, would be the ability to more efficiently plan and schedule construction activity without the uncertainty surrounding annual appropriations acts.Specifically, greater investments could be made in California’s Central Valley Project and in the Columbia Basin Project, the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, the Dam Safety Program and the Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program. More emphasis could be placed on addressing invasive species threats to water infrastructure. Increasing investments would benefit the Klamath and Middle Rio Grande Projects and Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the Trinity River Restoration Program, and Yakima Project and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement.14Construction related to Indian water rights settlements could be expedited including the Aamodt, Blackfeet, and Crow settlements, as well as the Navajo-Gallup water supply project. Money would also be more readily available for pending and future settlements, including the Navajo Utah and Navajo-Hopi in Arizona.A federal commitment to authorized rural water supply projects in Montana, New Mexico, North and South Dakota that have languished due to inadequate funding for timely completion could be fulfilled benefiting rural communities, including many tribal communities. The WSWC has long supported greater investment in these authorized projects, on an expedited timetable, which would provide significant cost savings given increasing construction costs.15 Increased appropriations for WaterSMART programs would advance basin studies, cooperative watershed management, drought response assistance, water reclamation and reuse projects, and water conservation. III. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BENEFITS/BUDGETThe Reclamation Act succeeded as a catalyst for the settlement of the arid West, which is now among the most urbanized regions in the Nation. The water and power resources developed and provided by the Bureau of Reclamation (as well as the flood control benefits) over more than a century supported growth and continue to be critical to the maintenance of the water supply for the major metropolitan areas of Albuquerque, Amarillo, Boise, Denver, El Paso, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Lubbock, Phoenix, Portland, Reno, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Tucson and numerous other smaller cities and diverse rural communities across the West.As the largest supplier and manager of water in the Nation and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power, Reclamation’s projects and programs are foundational to driving and maintaining economic growth in hundreds of watershed basins throughout the United States. Reclamation manages water for agricultural, municipal and industrial use, and provides flood control and recreation for millions of people.Bureau of Reclamation facilities include 337 reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water and irrigating approximately 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation projects also provide water to about 31 million people for municipal and industrial uses, while generating more than 40 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year. Reclamation owns 76 powerplants and operates 53 hydroelectric power plants serving some 3.8 million households. Reclamation collects over $1.0 billion in gross power revenues for the Federal government each year. Reclamation and its partners manage 289 recreation areas, with over 90 million visits annually. Reclamation projects also provide flood control, and fish and wildlife benefits. 16Reclamation’s dams and reservoirs, water conveyance systems, and power generating facilities are integral components of the Nation’s infrastructure. Effectively managing the benefits provided by these structures are among the many significant challenges that Reclamation faces. Changing demographics and competing demands are increasingly stressing already strained systems. Reclamation’s water and power projects and activities throughout the western United States are not only essential for sustainable and safe water supplies for both agricultural, municipal and industrial purposes, but also provide energy in the form of hydropower, and maintain ecosystems that support fish and wildlife, hunting and recreation, as well as rural economies.17Bureau of Reclamation activities support 463,000 jobs, $35.5 billion in value added and $63.5 billion in economic output. These figures broken down by sector include: (1) hydropower 12,400 jobs, $1.9 billion in value added, and $3.3 billion in economic output; (2) irrigation 366,000 jobs, $24.9 billion and $44.5 billion; (3) municipal and industrial water supply 52,100 jobs, $6.1 billion and $11 billion; (4) USBR payroll with 5,550 employees adding $506 million in value and total economic output of $906 million; and lastly (5) recreation 26,900 jobs, 2.1 billion and $3.8 billion.18The FY2020 budget request19 includes $1.1 billion for Reclamation’s water resource programs, with $962 million for the Water and Related Resources account, $434.8 million for construction, planning, and management of water and energy projects and programs and $527.2 million for water and power facility operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities. The Reclamation Fund also provides appropriations for the Bureau’s non-construction related expenses. There is $60 million for the Policy and Administration account.Broadly ripples to critical infrastructure---turns every impactDennis Pamlin & Stuart Armstrong 15, Dennis Pamlin, Executive Project Manager Global Risks, Global Challenges Foundation; Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, “Global Challenges: 12 Risks that threaten human civilization: The case for a new risk category,” February 2015, Global Challenges Foundation, Challenges – Twelve risks that threaten human civilisation – The case for a new category of risks 89 3.1 Current risks 3.1.5 Global System Collapse Global system collapse is defined here as either an economic or societal collapse on the global scale. There is no precise definition of a system collapse. The term has been used to describe a broad range of bad economic conditions, ranging from a severe, prolonged depression with high bankruptcy rates and high unemployment, to a breakdown in normal commerce caused by hyperinflation, or even an economically-caused sharp increase in the death rate and perhaps even a decline in population. 310 Often economic collapse is accompanied by social chaos, civil unrest and sometimes a breakdown of law and order. Societal collapse usually refers to the fall or disintegration of human societies, often along with their life support systems. It broadly includes both quite abrupt societal failures typified by collapses, and more extended gradual declines of superpowers. Here only the former is included. 3.1.5.1 Expected impact The world economic and political system is made up of many actors with many objectives and many links between them. Such intricate, interconnected systems are subject to unexpected system-wide failures due to the structure of the network311 – even if each component of the network is reliable. This gives rise to systemic risk: systemic risk occurs when parts that individually may function well become vulnerable when connected as a system to a self-reinforcing joint risk that can spread from part to part (contagion), potentially affecting the entire system and possibly spilling over to related outside systems.312 Such effects have been observed in such diverse areas as ecology,313 finance314 and critical infrastructure315 (such as power grids). They are characterised by the possibility that a small internal or external disruption could cause a highly non-linear effect,316 including a cascading failure that infects the whole system,317 as in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The possibility of collapse becomes more acute when several independent networks depend on each other, as is increasingly the case (water supply, transport, fuel and power stations are strongly coupled, for instance).318 This dependence links social and technological systems as well.319 This trend is likely to be intensified by continuing globalisation,320 while global governance and regulatory mechanisms seem inadequate to address the issue.321 This is possibly because the tension between resilience and efficiency322 can even exacerbate the problem.323 Many triggers could start such a failure cascade, such as the infrastructure damage wrought by a coronal mass ejection,324 an ongoing cyber conflict, or a milder form of some of the risks presented in the rest of the paper. Indeed the main risk factor with global systems collapse is as something which may exacerbate some of the other risks in this paper, or as a trigger. But a simple global systems collapse still poses risks on its own. The productivity of modern societies is largely dependent on the careful matching of different types of capital325 (social, technological, natural...) with each other. If this matching is disrupted, this could trigger a “social collapse” far out of proportion to the initial disruption.326 States and institutions have collapsed in the past for seemingly minor systemic reasons.327 And institutional collapses can create knock-on effects, such as the descent of formerly prosperous states to much more impoverished and destabilising entities.328 Such processes could trigger damage on a large scale if they weaken global political and economic systems to such an extent that secondary effects (such as conflict or starvation) could cause great death and suffering. 3.1.5.2 Probability disaggregation Five important factors in estimating the probabilities of various impacts: 1. Whether global system collapse will trigger subsequent collapses or fragility in other areas. 2. What the true trade-off is between efficiency and resilience. 3. Whether effective regulation and resilience can be developed. 4. Whether an external disruption will trigger a collapse. 5. Whether an internal event will trigger a collapse. [[CHART OMITTED]]1. Increased global coordination and cooperation may allow effective regulatory responses, but it also causes the integration of many different aspects of today’s world, likely increasing systemic risk. 2. Systemic risk is only gradually becoming understood, and further research is needed, especially when it comes to actually reducing systemic risk. 3. Since systemic risk is risk in the entire system, rather than in any individual component of it, only institutions with overall views and effects can tackle it. But regulating systemic risk is a new and uncertain task. 4. Building resilience – the ability of system components to survive shocks – should reduce systemic risk. 5. Fragile systems are often built because they are more efficient than robust systems, and hence more profitable. 6. General mitigation efforts should involve features that are disconnected from the standard system, and thus should remain able to continue being of use if the main system collapses 7. A system collapse could spread to other areas, infecting previously untouched systems (as the subprime mortgage crisis affected the world financial system, economy, and ultimately its political system). 8. The system collapse may lead to increased fragility in areas that it does not directly damage, making them vulnerable to subsequent shocks. 9. A collapse that spread to government institutions would undermine the possibilities of combating the collapse. 10. A natural ecosystem collapse could be a cause or consequence of a collapse in humanity’s institutions. 11. Economic collapse is an obvious and visible way in which system collapse could cause a lot of damage. 12. In order to cause mass casualties, a system collapse would need to cause major disruptions to the world’s political and economic system. 13. If the current world system collapses, there is a risk of casualties through loss of trade, poverty, wars and increased fragility. 14. It is not obvious that the world’s institutions and systems can be put together again after a collapse; they may be stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium. 15. Power grids are often analysed as possible candidates for system collapse, and they are becoming more integrated. 16. The world’s financial systems have already caused a system collapse, and they are still growing more integrated. 17. The world’s economies are also getting integrated, spreading recessions across national boundaries. 18. The world’s political and legal systems are becoming more closely integrated as well. Any risk has not been extensively researched yet, and there remain strong obstacles (mainly at the nation state level) slowing down this form of integration. 19. The politics of the post-system collapse world will be important in formulating an effective response instead of an indifferent or counterproductive one. 20. System collapses can be triggered internally by very small events, without an apparent cause. 21. External disruptions can trigger the collapse of an already fragile system. 22. The trade-off between efficiency and resilience is a key source of fragility in a world economy built around maximising efficiency. 23. Climate change, mass movements of animals and agricultural mono-cultures are interlinking ecosystems with each other and with human institutions. 24. There is a lot of uncertainty about systemic risk, especially in the interactions between different fragilities that would not be sufficient to cause a collapse on their own.OverviewSpecifically---collapses would tank international gridsRosemary A. Burk & Jan Kallberg 16, Burk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office; Kallberg, Army Cyber Institute, “Cyber Defense as a Part of Hazard Mitigation: Comparing High Hazard Potential Dam Safety Programs in the United States and Sweden,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, vol. 13, no. 1, 01/01/2016, (Crossref), doi:10.1515/jhsem-2015-0047The traditional cybersecurity approach is to focus on the loss of function and disruption in electricity generation – overlooking the potential environmental effect of an inland tsunami (Kallberg and Burk 2014). This is especially troublesome where the population and the industries are dense along a river, such as in Pennsylvania, Germany, and other areas with cities built around historic mills. If the cyberattack occurred during a heavy rain when the dams were already stressed, any rapid increase in water level could trigger successive dam collapses. This could lead to high casualties and a critical loss of hydroelectric capacity. In nations seeking to maximize their hydropower capacity and deliver electricity to other countries via elaborate international electricity grids. Ensuring dam safety for these countries, such as in Sweden, becomes an issue of domestic and international importance.It cascades globally AND it’s irreversible---extinctionMartin Rees 18, Astronomer Royal, founded the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Fellow of Trinity College and Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, “2. Humanity’s Future on Earth,” in On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, 10/16/2018, Princeton University Press, pp 61-1192.5. TRULY EXISTENTIAL RISKS? Our world increasingly depends on elaborate networks: electricity power grids, air traffic control, international finance, globally dispersed manufacturing, and so forth. Unless these networks are highly resilient, their benefits could be outweighed by catastrophic (albeit rare) breakdowns— realworld analogues of what happened in the 2008 global financial crisis. Cities would be paralysed [gridlocked] without electricity— the lights would go out, but that would be far from the most serious consequence. Within a few days our cities would be uninhabitable and anarchic. Air travel can spread a pandemic worldwide within days, wreaking havoc on the disorganised megacities of the developing world. And social media can spread panic and rumour, and economic contagion, literally at the speed of light. When we realise the power of biotech, robotics, cybertechnology, and AI— and, still more, their potential in the coming decades— we can’t avoid anxieties about how this empowerment could be misused. The historical record reveals episodes when ‘civilisations’ have crumbled and even been extinguished. Our world is so interconnected it’s unlikely a catastrophe could hit any region without its consequences cascading globally. For the first time, we need to contemplate a collapse— societal or ecological— that would be a truly global setback to civilisation. The setback could be temporary. On the other hand, it could be so devastating (and could have entailed so much environmental or genetic degradation) that the survivors could never regenerate a civilisation at the present level.Collapse will be misattributed to a Russian attack---we’d retaliate, going nuclearStephen Bryen 20, has 40 years of experience in government and industry, has served as a senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the Executive Director of a grass roots political organization, as the head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy, as the founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration, as the President of Delta Tech Inc., as the President of Finmeccanica North America, and as a Commissioner of the U.S. China Security Review Commission, “Rising cyberattacks threaten real-world war,” Asia Times, 6-5-2020, threatsAttacks on critical infrastructure continue to menace developed countries. Among the targets are power plants, including nuclear energy, transportation hubs, banking?and financial systems, communications systems, railroads and metros, electrical grids, dams and reservoirs, water and sewage systems, food and agriculture systems and healthcare and medicine.?Aside from the recent attacks on Israel’s water system – and Israel’s retaliation that temporarily disabled the Iranian?Shahid Rajaee port?(Bandar Abbas) in the?Straits of Hormuz – laboratories and institutions working on Covid-19 vaccines and related medicines?have been targeted?in the US, UK and elsewhere.? These rising?attacks are attributed by US officials to China, Russia and Iran.?Covid-19-linked cyberattacks reflect the huge competition among global pharmaceutical companies for windfalls and market share if a successful vaccine is developed.A growing concern in the US is that foreign equipment, mainly coming from China, can have built-in back doors or include malware buried in the code of the firmware or software that comes with the hardware.?Chinese products sold to the general public have been found to be infected with malware or discovered to have so-called back doors.?Some of that equipment has made it into critical infrastructure.?The Pentagon is in the process of removing some?Chinese-made surveillance cameras?used at military bases and Defense Department installations. Flash memory devices coming from China and elsewhere were?blocked by the Pentagon?either because they carried hidden malware or because the devices themselves were insecure.?Concerns have also been raised about?network routers?and other hardware routinely purchased by government agencies, defense contractors and critical infrastructure organizations.In Israel, after the attack on the National Water Company, steps were implemented immediately to change all passwords and make other hardware and software changes to help prevent another incident.Chinese power transformersAt the end of May, the US government seized a large 500,000 pound (226,796 kilogram)?power transformer?manufactured by Chinese company?Jiangsu Huapeng Transformer Company.?The transformer was purchased by the?Western Area Power Administration. It was sent by the government to the?Sandia National Laboratory?for exploitation.Since 2009, Jiangsu Huapeng has delivered more than 100 large power transformers to US power companies in New York, New Jersey, Florida and Nevada. The seized transformer that arrived at the Port of Houston was already purchased and paid for by the Western Area Power Administration.There is no indication that any power transformer from Jiangsu Huapeng has been compromised. But when US President Donald Trump signed?Executive Order 13920?“Securing the United States Bulk-Power System” it spoke to perceived rising risks from Chinese-made and procured infrastructure components.The Executive Order says that “foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in the United States bulk-power system, which provides the electricity that supports our national defense, vital emergency services, critical infrastructure, economy, and way of life.”?The order specifically prohibits a wide range of transactions that “involves bulk-power system electric equipment designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary.”?The president’s order?designates the US Department of Energy?“to mitigate, prohibit or unwind” such transactions or purchases.?On May 4,?the US Department of Commerce announced a?national security investigation?into imports of parts used in electrical transformer equipment, specifically the transformers themselves, transformer cores and laminates and transformer regulators.??The Jiangsu power transformers shipped?to the US include electronic equipment and digital controls that are made by US and UK firms. As is normal, a power transformer is shipped from the manufacturer with the electronic equipment included in the delivery.?US authorities are concerned that the equipment could have been modified or had malware installed into it.?The?Wall Street Journal?reported that the US government’s main focus?was on a monitor that detects deterioration in the transformer’s insulating oil.?All large transformers need to be cooled and the usual method is to surround the transformer core with a jacket containing oil or other liquids to transfer away heat. A sign of an impending failure is when the oil temperature rises above normal levels.?Sensors in the transformer can trigger the safety instrumentation system that then can disable power to the transformer until it is repaired or replaced. If transformers in a large power grid overheat and go out of control, they can burn up or explode. Last July, Midtown Manhattan experienced a major power failure because a transformer caught fire.It is not entirely clear why the Trump administration acted on Chinese power transformers. Power transformers are a growing market,?estimated to reach US$34 billion in 2024.?Much of the industry is outside the US. But the?US Energy Department says the?United States is one of the “world’s largest markets for power transformers and holds the largest installed base of LPTs [large power transformers], and this installed base is aging.”? ?The Energy Department report also says the US only manufactures about 15% of the power transformers it requires. The Trump administration would like to see more domestic manufacturing and some companies from Japan and South Korea are now building plants to make transformers in the US.While it is possible the Trump administration acted solely for economic reasons, it has cast its action as a national security issue, and the president directed the departments of energy and commerce to carry out investigations with that particular focus.?That suggests there may already be evidence of threats to the power grid involving hardware from outside the US. Among the national security concerns?in play are cyber-attacks that could collapse the national power grid and the risk of electromagnetic?pulse attacks (EMP) that could disable the grid.?Recent administrations have pushed for hardening power transformers against EMP, but the heavy dependence on imports and the lack of interest by private and semi-public power companies has led to little real progress.?Rising tensionsAs tensions mount between the US and China as well as Russia, more dangerous attacks on critical infrastructure can be expected, even if these attacks use cutouts to hide responsibility.Every nation, including the US, has launched cyberattacks on rivals’ infrastructure – in 2010 the US and Israel used the?Stuxnet?“worm” against Iranian centrifuges, targeting the centrifuges’ supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA).More recently, the?US hit Iran with critical infrastructure disruptions?after the 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais cruise missile and drone attack on Saudi oil installations. While Stuxnet was a serious attempt to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons program, it was only partly successful.?Neither the targets nor the results of?recent US infrastructure attacks on Iran have been revealed.While Stuxnet was a serious attack, for the most part the US has mainly been passive and not reacted against critical infrastructure cyberattacks, even while the US’ critical infrastructure sector was pummeled by state actors and allegedly independent hackers. So far that continues to be the US’ posture, but that passivity could change.The most recent attacks are using more sophisticated tools aimed at defeating safety systems and, if the Iranian attack on Israel is indicative of the future, are aimed at harming civilians.This means that cyberattacks are looking more and more like warfare, and could be interpreted as presaging?a physical attack by a foreign adversary.?The dividing line between cyber and hard military warfare is already blurry; the balance could tip, leading to US military countermeasures.In fact, a cyber-event that resulted in US civilian casualties almost surely would be seen as a casus belli.?According to Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies?(INSS), the?Iranian attack was taken up by Israel’s?political-security cabinet on May 7, 2020.As INSS reported: “The Iranian cyber attacks are part of the multi-front struggle with Israel, which is also reflected in calls to destroy Israel, military entrenchment in Syria, support for Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic organizations, and the drive for a nuclear weapon.”?The Israeli security cabinet decided on the subsequent port attack instead of stronger military action.?Israel’s response would have been far harsher had the Iranian attack accomplished its poisonous objective.The US probably would likewise react harshly if a critical infrastructure attack did any real and lasting damage and resulted in civilian casualties.?No one can say for sure when, or if, that will happen but the potential for a cyber-driven military confrontation is rising.UniquenessFunds High---2NCFunding’s high---Biden is pushing hikes, specifically for infrastructure maintenance. Water Online 21, Water trade journal, “President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Makes Significant Investments In Bureau of Reclamation,” 5/28/21, Biden-Harris administration today submitted to Congress the President’s budget for fiscal year 2022, which includes a $1.5 billion investment for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The budget builds on recent announcements to address water issues and supports the administration’s goals of ensuring reliable and environmentally responsible delivery of water and power for farms, families, communities and industry, while providing tools to confront widening imbalances between supply and demand throughout the West.“The Interior Department plays an important role in the President’s plan to reinvest in the American people. From bolstering climate resiliency and increasing renewable energy, to supporting Tribal nations and advancing environmental justice, President Biden’s budget will make much-needed investments in communities and projects that will advance our vision for a robust and equitable clean energy future,” said Secretary Deb Haaland.“Drought, climate change, and issues of equity and sustainability as well as the continuous need to secure and modernize our nation’s water infrastructure are challenges that Reclamation, partners, and stakeholders all face,” said Deputy Commissioner of Reclamation Camille Touton. “Reclamation’s budget for 2022 will provide our team of dedicated professionals a solid operational baseline to develop innovative solutions and support adaptive management of limited resources.”The budget includes four key components that supports the President's commitment to managing water resources in the West including: water reliability and resilience, racial and economic equity, conservation and climate resilience, and infrastructure modernization. At the Bureau of Reclamation, the budget would:Increase Water Reliability and Resilience. The proposed FY 2022 budget includes $1.4 billion for Reclamation’s principal operating account (Water and Related Resources), which funds planning, construction, water conservation, management of Reclamation lands, and efforts to address fish and wildlife habitat needs. The request also supports the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation activities—including dam safety—at Reclamation facilities. Funding of $33 million is proposed to implement the California Bay-Delta Program and help address California’s current water supply and ecological challenges, while $56.5 million is for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins. It also provides $64.4 million to develop, evaluate, and directly implement Reclamation-wide policy, rules and regulations, as well as other administrative functions.Support Racial and Economic Equity. The budget supports many of the Administration priorities, including those for racial and economic equity in support of underserved communities and tribal areas. A request of $92.9 million advances the construction and continues the operations and maintenance of authorized rural water projects. Additionally, the FY 2022 budget request includes a total of $157.6 million for Indian water rights settlements, supporting the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project; the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement; the Aamodt Litigation Settlement; the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement; the Nez Perce Settlement within Columbia and Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project; the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Settlement Act; the Gila River Indian Community; the Ak-Chin Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; and the Colorado Ute Settlement Act within the Animas La Plata Project. The budget provides $20 million for the Native American Affairs Program, which provides technical support and assistance to tribal governments to develop and manage their water resources.Enhance Water Conservation and Climate Resilience. Conservation and climate resilience are mission oriented and critical goals of Reclamation operations. This is emphasized by a $45.2 million request for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program, including $15 million to build on the work of Reclamation, Colorado River partners and stakeholders to implement drought contingency plans; $3.3 million for the Upper Colorado River Operations Program to support Drought Response Operations; $184.7 million to find long-term, comprehensive water supply solutions for farmers, families and communities in California’s Central Valley Project; and $54.1 million for the WaterSMART Program to support Reclamation’s collaboration with non-federal partners to address emerging water demands and water shortage issues in the West. A total of $27.5 million will continue Reclamation’s Research and Development investments in science, technology, and desalination research in support of prize competitions, technology transfers, and pilot testing projects.Modernize Infrastructure. Reclamation’s dams and reservoirs, water conveyance systems, and power generating facilities continue to represent a primary focus area of organizational operations. $207.1 million is provided for the Dam Safety Program to effectively manage risks to downstream public, including $182.5 million for modification actions, while $125.3 million is requested for extraordinary maintenance activities across Reclamation—part of a strategy to improve asset management and deal with aging infrastructure to ensure continued reliable delivery of water and power.Infrastructure maintenance is funded but it’s contingent on funding trade-offs. USBR 18, United States Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation Funding,” 2018, and Safety – Reclamation’s dams, water conveyances, and power generating facilities are integral components of the Nation’s infrastructure that provide basic water and power services to millions of customers in hundreds of basins throughout the western United States. Effectively managing the benefits these structures provide is among the significant challenges facing Reclamation over the next several years. Nearly 86 percent of Reclamation’s dams are over 50 years old and 90 percent of the dams were built before currently used, state-of-the-art design and construction practices. Reclamation manages 492 dams throughout the 17 western States. The Dam Safety program has identified 363 high and significant hazard dams. Reclamation evaluates dams and monitors performance to ensure risks do not exceed current Reclamation public protection guidelines. Through constant monitoring and assessment, Reclamation strives to achieve the best use of its limited resources to ensure dam safety and to maintain their ability to store and divert water and to generate hydropower.Reclamation’s Dam Safety program utilizes the latest information and technology to evaluate and address the most pressing safety risks. The Dam Safety program continues to be one of Reclamation’s highest priorities. The program helps ensure the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams to protect the downstream public.The 2018 budget request includes $88.1 million for the Dam Safety program, which includes $66.5 million to correct identified safety issues. Funding also includes $20.3 million for safety evaluations of existing dams and $1.3 million to oversee the Safety of Dams program. The 2018 request also includes $26.2 million for Site Security to ensure the safety and security of the public, Reclamation’s employees, and key facilities. This funding includes $4.1 million for physical security upgrades at high risk critical assets and $22.1 million to continue all aspects of bureau-wide security efforts including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel security, information security, risk assessments and securityrelated studies, guards, and patrols.The proposed budget includes $99.9 million for specific projects for extraordinary maintenance activities across Reclamation. This request is central to mission objectives of operating and maintaining projects to ensure delivery of water and power benefits. Reclamation’s request is part of its overall Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition and performance metrics, technological research and deployment, and strategic collaboration to better inform and improve the management of its assets and deal with its infrastructure maintenance challenges. Additional extraordinary maintenance items are directly funded by revenues, customers, or other Federal agencies, such as the Bonneville Power Administration.Funds High---DamsFinancial demands are escalating because of aging but USBR will meet themPayne 19 – [Grayford Payne, July 24 2019, Deputy Commissioner For Policy, Administration, And Budget, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Needs”, Bureau of Reclamation, ]Reclamation’s dams, water conveyance systems, and power generating facilities are integral components of our Nation’s infrastructure. Effectively managing our infrastructure and the benefits these structures provide is among the significant challenges facing Reclamation. Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and approximately 90 percent of the dams were built before adoption of currently used, state-of-theart design and construction practices. Of the 492 dams in Reclamation’s inventory, our Dam Safety Program has identified 363 high and significant hazard dams, where there is potential for loss of life and/or significant economic damage if those dams were to experience significant structural failures. Reclamation evaluates dams to address new hydrologic or seismic data, or changes in state-of-the-art criteria deemed necessary for safety purposes to ensure that risks do not exceed current Reclamation public protection guidelines. Reclamation released an Infrastructure Investment Strategy in 2015, which initially focused on improving the quality of Major Rehabilitation and Replacement (MR&R) data at Reclamation facilities. MR&R needs include all extraordinary maintenance, safety of dams modifications, and deferred maintenance at all Reclamation facilities regardless of the source of funding. The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9), enacted in March 2019, requires categorization of repair needs and the regular reporting of information related to Reclamation’s investments in its infrastructure, for both reserved and transferred works, to Congress. The MR&R data being collected will enable Reclamation to meet this requirement. 4 The Fiscal Year 2020 budget for Reclamation requests appropriations for specific projects for Extraordinary Maintenance (XM) activities across Reclamation. Reclamation’s XM request is part of its overall Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments, condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment, and strategic collaboration to better inform and improve the management of its assets and deal with its infrastructure maintenance challenges. Through this strategy, Reclamation has been successful in ensuring proper maintenance of our facilities. For example, over the previous year, Reclamation has continually maintained over 81% of our facilities in good condition. Additional XM items are directly funded by revenues, customers, or other Federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration). Dam safety efforts include major modifications in the near future that are integral to the safe and efficient operation of Reclamation facilities, including the B.F. Sisk Dam in California and the Scoggins Dam in Oregon; such endeavors may require Congressional action to raise the authorized appropriations ceiling for dam safety modifications. Examples of extraordinary maintenance activities within the five-year reporting window include the Leadville Water Treatment Facility, Friant-Kern Canal repairs to the subsidence area, and general equipment repairs and replacements (such as switch replacements, computer system upgrades and installs, and motor control replacements) at the Grand Coulee Dam facilities. Sources of funding for MR&R activities include appropriations for dam safety modifications, appropriations for activities other than dam safety, non-appropriated funding for power facilities (power financing), non-appropriated funding for water facilities (from transferred works operating entities), and non-appropriated funding by water users at facilities where Reclamation retains the operations and maintenance responsibility (reserved works). Of the identified $3.0 billion in MR&R needs for FY 2019-2023, $2.0 billion or 68% of the projected five-year need is projected to be funded from sources other than Reclamation annual appropriations. Reclamation’s FY 2020 budget request includes construction funding for projects such as the Cle Elum Fish Passage within the Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project, the Mendota Pool Bypass of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, and the Navajo-San Juan Indian water rights settlement, among others. Finally, the FY 2020 Budget supports the Administration’s and Department of the Interior’s goals to provide secure, reliable water supplies for irrigation, people, and the environment; supports certain rural water projects; and fulfill our commitments to tribal nations.Link---Trade OffGenericLink---2NCPAYGO rules necessitate new water spending is offset within the reclamation budget---new demands cannibalize existing priorities. Charles V. Stern 19, researcher at Congressional Research Service, “The Reclamation Fund,” 5/21/19, CRS, TrendsAfter the Reclamation Fund’s early issues with solvency, it maintained a relatively stable balance through the early 1990s. At that point the fund’s balance began to increase as revenues from natural resource royalties significantly exceeded appropriations from the fund. For every year since FY1994 except FY2009—when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) also appropriated funding for Reclamation projects from the fund—receipts going into the Reclamation Fund have exceeded appropriations made from it by more than $100 million. From FY2010 to FY2018, the average difference between credits and appropriations was $980 million. As of the end of FY2018, the fund’s balance was $16.6 billion. Trends in fund credits, appropriations, and balances are shown below in Figure 1.Appropriations. Most expenditures of Reclamation Fund balances are made through appropriations for Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources account, which funds operations and maintenance and construction costs for designated BOR water projects. (As noted above, some Reclamation projects are funded by the General Fund or by individual project funds.) Appropriations are also made for the expenses under Reclamation’s Policy and Administrative account (approximately $60 million/year) and Western Area Power Administration’s construction and maintenance activities (approximately $180 million/year). From FY2003 to FY2018, average appropriations from the fund have been $1.024 billion.Receipts. Average receipts from FY2003 to FY2018 were approximately $1.785 billion per year. Receipts from natural resource royalties and hydropower sales are by far the largest sources of credits to the fund and the primary reason for the fund’s recent increasing balance. Over the aforementioned period, 90% of the Reclamation Fund’s receipts came from these two sources, including 74% from natural resource royalties. Based on the source (by state) of natural resource royalties credited to the Reclamation Fund, CRS estimates that an average of 98% of natural resource royalty receipts came from seven western states: Wyoming (50%), New Mexico (27%), Colorado (7%), Utah (7%), California (3%), Montana (2%), and North Dakota (2%). (Pursuant to statute, natural resource royalties from Alaska are handled separately and do not accrue to the Reclamation Fund.)Understanding “Surplus” Fund BalancesSimilar to other special funds that are subject to appropriation, the Reclamation Fund is an accounting mechanism within the larger federal budget. Thus, the fund’s multi-billion-dollar “surplus” balance does not represent real resources available for spending. Instead, it reflects a record of the fund’s authorized uses compared with actual appropriations by Congress. The current surplus reflects the fact that over time, receipts have significantly exceeded appropriations. Some point out that this runs contrary to congressional intent. However, Congress’s direction since 1914 that fund expenditures be subject to annual appropriations means that congressional appropriators have the final say on whether appropriations are set at a level that corresponds with receipts. That is, Congress may at any time choose to increase or decrease appropriations from the fund to better correlate with incoming receipts and/or other congressional priorities but has generally chosen not to do so.Some have proposed increasing appropriations from the Reclamation Fund either by funding new projects or as a supplement to ongoing authorized Reclamation project expenditures. Such a change could take one or more forms, each of which may have associated budget scoring impacts. For instance, Congress could significantly increase the overall level of discretionary appropriations from the Reclamation Fund to match collections, but such an increase would have to occur despite competition with other appropriations accounts (including those from the Treasury’s General Fund) that factor into the congressional budget allocation process. Congress could also dedicate revenue accruing to the Reclamation Fund to a subset of specific projects or to a new account or accounts focusing on specific goals. This could be done via discretionary funding or mandatory funding. In the latter case, congressional PAYGO requirements may necessitate offsets corresponding to these changes. Thus, some have pushed for changes outside of the 10-year scoring window.BoR resources are finite and entail tradeoffs---new policies make future conflicts over project priorities inevitableCRS 11, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members?, “The Bureau of Reclamation’s Aging Infrastructure”, CRS, 3-30-2011, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is responsible for the construction of most of the large irrigation and water resources infrastructure in the West. These water resource facilities are dispersed throughout 17 western states and have an original development cost of more than $21 billion. Most of Reclamation’s infrastructure has an average age of over 50 years. This aging infrastructure requires increased maintenance and replacement efforts and expenditures. Reclamation estimates that the total cost for upgrades at all of its facilities exceeds $3 billion. Reclamation has a documented plan to assess the management needs of its portfolio of aging infrastructure. However, deferred maintenance needs are increasing, and water resource infrastructure management objectives require prioritization due in part to a finite budget. Reclamation’s work on deferred maintenance and replacement is complicated by the fact that it maintains only one-third of the infrastructure that it owns. The remaining two-thirds are owned by Reclamation but have been transferred to local entities (“transferred works”). This makes for a unique combination of deteriorating infrastructure, patchwork management responsibilities, and limited financing that inevitably leads to conflicts over project priorities. As Reclamation’s portfolio of infrastructure continues to age, these conflicts are likely to arise more often. Some have argued for changes to the existing processes that address Reclamation’s aging infrastructure. To date, funds have been authorized and appropriated for a national program that focuses on a certain class of resources (dams). However, outside of this program, no national list of maintenance and upgrade priorities exists, and there are no major programmatic authorities for Reclamation to address these needs without repayment by users (which can make upgrades prohibitive in some cases). Recently, Congress has authorized a loan program to address aging infrastructure and has provided the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to advance federal funds and extend repayment periods for extraordinary maintenance projects. However, as a matter of policy, the Administration has generally refused to request funding for efforts that would primarily benefit nonfederal users. In the future, users are likely to continue to argue for more funding (particularly for transferred works), as well as for reforms to the overall process of documenting and selecting projects for improvementsLink---Magnifier---IntegrationUSBR is saving resources through coordination and economies of scale---the AFF disrupts that--this ev is about US-MexicoAbarca et al. 14, members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, “Ecological Restoration in the U.S. Mexico Border Region,” December 2014, Sixteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United StatesAddressing Emerging IssuesTwo emerging issues warrant special attention: scaling and connectivity. Given the size of the U.S.-Mexico border region and the limited resources available for restoration activities, managers must seek efficiencies of scale. Project work typically is conducted on sites less than 100 acres (40 hectares). In some cases, work is implemented with a broader vision of ecological integrity across large areas, but work is driven more by local species habitat requirements, and not species range and large-scale ecological processes such as regional stream flows and animal movement. Each of these projects requires separate assessments, goal structuring and planning, the use of or procurement of trained equipment operators, the collection and increase of plant materials, localized herbicide treatments and monitoring.Link---Magnifier---PlanningSmall disruptions have a ripple effect---they disrupt planning and managementAbarca et al. 14, members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, “Ecological Restoration in the U.S. Mexico Border Region,” December 2014, Sixteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United StatesCHALLENGESThe examples in the preceding section illustrate that through innovative approaches, progress toward ecosystem restoration has been made. The cases also point to specific issues that, if addressed, would increase the success of individual projects and the potential for regional-scale restoration. This section identifies some key challenges.Working in the Border EnvironmentIncreased drug cartel activities along the border have heightened the need for security for professional and volunteer staff conducting restoration. For example, at Organ Pipe National Monument, staff require an armed law enforcement escort as they conduct field activities in many sections of the Park. Likewise, the standard operating procedures (SOPs) at each border NRCS field office include preventative safety measures such as every employee having a cell phone and satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) messenger equipment when working along the border, as well as OnStar vehicles.Building and Maintaining CapacityEven where goals are clear, metrics have been developed, and partners have been identified, lack of project/ program management, staff and funding hampers ecological restoration efforts in the border region. Annual federal budget allocations fluctuate, are rarely provided in a timely manner, and may not reflect multiple- year planning needs that are the reality of restoration projects. Restoration projects must compete for limited resources, and, despite the long-term value of and future savings associated with restored ecosystems, immediate needs frequently take priority and leave restoration projects with insufficient resources. For example, despite efforts of the BLM-supported Seeds of Success Program, plant materials are rarely available for the correct species and correct locations. Cross-agency funding of invasive plant control is unwieldy, and restoration dollars for fuel treatments are all too often diverted to Wildland Urban Interface fire response.Abrupt changes are uniquely damagingCRS 11, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members?, “The Bureau of Reclamation’s Aging Infrastructure”, CRS, 3-30-2011, maintenance or rehabilitation activities for Reclamation’s projects are typically funded through a line item in the facilities maintenance portion of the budget known as RAX (replacements, additions, and extraordinary maintenance) or else through the Safety of Dams Program.12 Some are directly funded by revenues from customers or other federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration). Within the RAX program, funds are provided to each region on an annual basis. Non-reimbursable RAX expenditures typically make up 4%-7% of Reclamation’s total appropriation.13 Notably, reviews by Reclamation and other entities have previously found that the bureau has difficulty budgeting for “non-routine” (i.e., major) items in its RAX program, and that there is room for improvement in the planning process.14 For instance, previous findings by the National Research Council indicated that there was no common quantifiable approach to prioritizing RAX across Reclamation regions and that inputs related to the program’s priorities were applied with varying consistency.15 Reclamation also found that the RAX program could benefit from improved long-range planning, which would allow more lead time to prepare for large RAX expenditures.16 Reclamation notes that it is addressing concerns with its RAX program in a number of ways, including analyzing past RAX expenditures, developing a quantifiable prioritization framework for O&M needs across Reclamation, improving management practices, and developing a capital rehabilitation investment strategy for the next 10 to 20 years.17 Since most of these efforts remain internal to Reclamation, the extent to which they have impacted project planning and budget requests is unclear.Link---Magnifier---Planning---ExtUnforeseen expenses constrain project funding which is already a challenge CRS 20, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and members, “Bureau of Reclamation: History, Authorities, and Issues for Congress,” CRS, 04-03-2020, , // [nayak]Aging infrastructure represents a significant challenge for Reclamation. Most of the bureau’s facilities are 60-100 years old, and the total replacement value of these facilities as of 2015 was estimated to be $99 billion.78 As these facilities age, the beneficiary-pays model poses a notable challenge for upkeep of Reclamation facilities. Most Reclamation contractors do not own the facilities from which they benefit and therefore may have difficulty financing their share of project repairs.79 Reclamation faces challenges not only in obtaining the requisite funding from Congress for aging infrastructure projects but also in structuring repayment requirements in a way that will not be overly burdensome for its contractors. Congress has expressed interest both in how Reclamation estimates and accounts for its infrastructure needs and in how it plans to address aging infrastructure in the future.Reclamation generally groups aging infrastructure and related needs into the overarching project category of major repair and rehabilitation (MR&R). This category includes both dam safety needs and federal- and contractor-funded needs for upgrades to water and power infrastructure. In early 2020, Reclamation estimated that its five-year extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation needs were $3.8 billion.80 This estimate includes dam safety appropriations and reserved works (both of which are funded via discretionary appropriations) and needs expected to be funded by water and power users and not by federal appropriations.81 Reclamation is also working on a broader strategy to estimate and account for its aging infrastructure needs, as required under the Reclamation Transparency Act, enacted in Subtitle G, Title VIII of P.L. 116-9.It impossible to predict what portion of Reclamation’s short- and long-term MR&R needs will go unmet. However, recent experience indicates that Reclamation will continue to request funding for a significant share of its MR&R needs, that unforeseen expenses are likely to arise, and that some contractors will have difficulty repaying their shares of some of these large rehabilitation expenses without federal aid. Some may question the prospect of additional federal spending for these projects and contractors. At the same time, infrastructure failures could pose a significant threat to the public in the form of physical and/or economic damages.Link---AT: Link Non-UniqueWrong---USBR water spending is down Wes Siler, 3-13-2019, Siler is a contributing editor at Outside Magazine. "Trump's Proposed Budget Would Devastate National Parks," Outside Online, The Bureau of Reclamation’s budget is slashed by $462 million. This includes cuts of $451 million for “water, and related resources.”Water resource spending is being cutKristyn Brady, 3-12-2019, "With Cuts in Trump's Budget, Congress Must Lead on Conservation," Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, ’s proposal also includes a 70-percent cut to WaterSMART Grants, the Bureau of Reclamation’s premier program for funding activities that conserve and recycle water in the West while also benefiting fish and wildlife habitat.Link---AT: Not Zero SumBoR resources are limited, and funding gaps require tradeoffs between policies---empirics.Quint 13 – Robert Quint is a Senior Advisor U.S. Department of the Interior, “Statement of Robert Quint, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of the Interior Before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water and Power U.S. Senate on S. 715 Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act”, USBR, 4-16-2013, available online @ a threshold matter, the Obama Administration has supported Reclamation's rural water program over the last four years, allocating $231 million of funding, in the FY 2010-2013 budgets, to construct, operate, and maintain authorized rural water projects in addition to $232 million provided for these projects in the Recovery Act. Still, the rural water program must compete with a number of other priorities within the Budget, including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, environmental compliance and restoration actions, and other priorities intended to address future water and energy related challenges. Notwithstanding the importance of rural water projects, current budget constraints have limited the ability to make Federal investments that match on-the-ground capabilities.Despite such constraints Reclamation has made progress in promoting certainty, sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on water resources in the West and in supporting the basic drinking water needs of rural communities, as directed by the Congress. S. 715 provides a constant level of mandatory funding to support the construction of authorized rural water projects to deliver water to smaller, isolated communities. However, the Department believes Federal investments in such projects must recognize the current fiscal constraints and the need to make tough choices in prioritizing those investments. The Administration supports the goals embodied by S. 715 of advancing the economic security of Americans living in rural areas, and constructing these important infrastructure projects will not only help provide the economic benefits of a clean, reliable, drinking water system that most Americans take for granted, but will also assist in creating jobs in the short-term through ongoing construction, but the Administration supports discretionary funding for these projects.Specifically---water projects historically compete with infrastructure maintenanceCRS 20 – [Congressional Research Service, April 7 2020, “Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Projects”, ]In early 2020, Reclamation stated that $1.2 billion was needed to complete authorized rural water projects under construction by the agency.45 In addition, Reclamation has previously estimated nontribal rural water supply needs in excess of $5 billion, and some observers have reported that assistance for communities is needed to address these needs.46 Some stakeholders have requested continued and increased funding for Reclamation rural water projects. In the 115th Congress, representatives of the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance asked Congress to compel Reclamation and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Rural Water Supply Program and investigate opportunities to develop loan and loan guarantee programs that can help fund new water infrastructure projects.47 Over the years, Reclamation has provided its views regarding funding for rural water projects. In general, Reclamation has testified that rural water projects must compete with a long list of other priorities, including aging infrastructure, environmental compliance and restoration actions, and dam safety. 48 During the consideration of authorizing existing rural water projects, Reclamation stated that long-standing agency policy was that local sponsors, particularly those that are nontribal, should reimburse Reclamation for 100% of the costs incurred for rural water supply from multipurpose projects. 49 Reclamation notes in its budget requests to Congress that constrained federal budgets do not preclude nonfederal sponsors’ ability to move forward with rural water projects by funding in excess of the minimum nonfederal contributions. 50 Reclamation has recommended that tribes, where possible, and other project beneficiaries be responsible for the O&M expenses of their rural water projects.51 Congress has appropriated funds for rural water projects on a nonreimbursable basis (i.e., as de facto grants). In some cases, local and tribal sponsors do not have funds or have not prioritized funds to increase their funding contributions. Should Congress continue to support rural water projects through Reclamation, Congress may consider various options. Too many projects have historically put the BOR fund at risk.Carlson 10 – [Anthony E. Carlson, 2010, PHD, “The Other Kind of Reclamation: Wetlands Drainage and National Water Policy, 1902–1912”, ]Since the Reclamation Service had much to gain from a second recla- mation act, its leaders praised the outcome of the Oklahoma City con- vention. By 1907 the agency was in big trouble as public land sales failed to meet expectations, western projects did not attract an exodus of fac- tory workers and tenement dwellers, project construction costs soared to over six times initial estimates, the price of land on government projects increased 759 percent between 1902 and 1913, the authorization of twenty-three projects in four years stretched the agency’s resources too thin, and by year’s end the reclamation fund teetered on the brink of insolvency. The Reclamation Service supported nationalization so it could gain access to a broader region, curry political support outside of the West, pursue multipurpose projects, and challenge the Corps of Engineers’ supremacy in river basin development. In pursuit of these goals, Newell corresponded with North Carolina Senator Lee Overman and Representative Claude Kitchin about initiating drainage projects in their state’s Bertie, Halifax, and Warren counties.”Link---AT: Not Zero Sum---ExtTrade-off in water policiesCRS, 04 – [Congressional Research Service, February 27 2004, “Environmental, Health, and Safety Tradeoffs: A Discussion of Policymaking Opportunities and Constraints”, ]A policymaker making a decision on approving a program may face the questions, What are the tradeoffs? What alternatives are foregone by committing resources to that program? This issue has been sharpened in environmental, health, and safety policy because studies indicate that some programs are more cost-effective than others, suggesting that redirecting resources from less efficient to more effective programs would increase overall national economic welfare. Actually making implied tradeoffs has proved difficult, however. One reason is continuing controversy over methods for evaluating the risks, costs, and benefits of alternative programs—leaving uncertainty about exactly what would be gained and lost in a tradeoff. Other constraints affecting tradeoffs include variations in regulatory standards among environmental, health, and safety statutes and political responses to nonquantifiable values such as equity. Legislative efforts to revise the statutes or to establish more comprehensive reviews of tradeoffs have moved slowly. Two further factors constrain the ability to make a tradeoff at a particular time and in a particular institutional context. One consists of institutional structures and procedures that impose limits on possible ranges of decisions within the legislative and executive branches. For example, an appropriations subcommittee typically weighs spending tradeoffs only among programs within its jurisdiction, but not tradeoffs with programs in the jurisdiction of other subcommittees even if the programs are related. Similarly, statutes authorizing environmental, health, and safety regulations may be written by separate committees, leading to variations in cost-effectiveness standards for protecting the public health and environment. A second complicating factor occurs when a program’s alternative(s) would require a shift in who can decide on the use of the resources involved, as when a regulatory program is considered in lieu of a tax-supported program. Deciding to regulate industrial air pollutants mandates spending by industry and consumers; choosing not to regulate leaves those monies available to the industry’s executives and consumers, who can invest/spend them according to their own preferences. Having little control over alternative expenditures, a decisionmaker tends to focus on each program as self-contained, not to compare options. The actual tradeoff faced by a legislator or policymaker at a particular time and place is constrained by institutional structure and rules, and by the fact that most decisions are up-or-down, not between program options. Many putative tradeoffs exist only in a theoretical sense: they are tradeoffs not then and there available to that policymaker. Making environmental, health, and safety tradeoffs on the basis of cost-benefit analyses implies restructuring decisionmaking processes, but such restructuring is very difficult in itself, and it is unclear whether the results would more accurately reflect the informed preferences of Congress—or the citizenry.Link---AT: Not Zero Sum---AT: LoansExisting loan programs have zero funding AND BoR managed facilities can’t be collateralized under the loans.CRS 11 - The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members?, “The Bureau of Reclamation’s Aging Infrastructure”, CRS, 3-30-2011, available online @ one-time costs of extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation efforts can be prohibitive for nonfederal entities that operate infrastructure owned by Reclamation (i.e., transferred works). As a result, securing loans or outside funding for these projects is often a priority for project operators. However, obtaining needed funding for rehabilitation can be difficult because the federal government retains title to these facilities, so the facilities themselves cannot be used by the operators as collateral to secure a private loan. Some have called for federal support of one or more credit (loan) programs to aid nonfederal entities in making repairs and/or upgrades to Reclamation infrastructure to resolve this issue. Congress has previously authorized loan programs that aim to address the issue of repair and maintenance of Reclamation’s transferred works. In 2006, the 109th Congress authorized a loan program for Reclamation under Title II of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-451). The program is to provide federal loan guarantees to project beneficiaries and make it easier to secure private funding.38 However, this program has not yet received funding. The Bush and Obama Administrations have both been hesitant to support the loan program in practice because of executive branch interpretations of the required subsidy cost to administer the program under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508).39 The executive branch has contended that the subsidy cost for federal loan guarantees under P.L. 109-541 must include an up-front appropriation equal to the full amount of the loan. User interests disagree with this interpretation and argue that the subsidy cost should be a percentage of guaranteed loans that may default, which would be a fraction of the cost of the loan itself.40 As a result of this disagreement, to date, no projects have been funded under this program.Loan program efforts fell apart in appropriation debates.CRS 11 - The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members?, “The Bureau of Reclamation’s Aging Infrastructure”, CRS, 3-30-2011, available online @ means for funding aging infrastructure, including loan programs and dedicated funding from the Reclamation Fund for aging infrastructure, are often raised as potential solutions, but have encountered setbacks within the executive branch and the appropriations process that have hindered implementation or enactment. In the future, Congress may be called upon to reconsider these and other proposals which attempt to address the issue of Reclamation’s aging infrastructure.Link---AT: ResilientIt’s not resilient---recent cuts mean there’s no headroomTRCP Staff 21, 501c3 non-profit corporation that works to preserve the traditions of hunting and fishing, “18 Hits (and a Few Misses) for Conservation in the President’s Proposed Budget,” Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, , // [nayak]In the water space, the president’s budget is, unfortunately, a mixed bag for hunters and anglers. Overall, the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget is cut by almost 10 percent from FY21 funding levels, and WaterSMART—a critical program for restoring fish habitat and developing solutions to water shortage issues brought on by drought, aging infrastructure, and agriculture and population strains—is cut by nearly 63 percent in what seems like a glaring oversight. This represents the smallest investment in WaterSMART since 2015, down from $55 million in FY21 to roughly $15 million in the current proposal.SpecificLink---Specific---Colorado RiverBoR’s framework for the Colorado River Basin is dependent on limited resources and priorities.DOI 12 – The United States Department of the Interior is a federal executive department of the U.S. government, “WaterSMART: A Three-Year Progress Report”, DOI, October 2012, available online @ SECURE feasibility studies, the final phase of the Basin Study Program, will provide Reclamation and its partners the opportunity to find ways to take action to bring water supply and demand into balance. After four years, significant progress has been made in the Basin Study Program. Reclamation published a framework with program guidelines in 2009. Incorporating lessons learned from four years of experience with studies such as the ones described in this report, Reclamation will finalize its internal directives in 2013. Moreover, with three studies completed and several more in the final stages of completion, Reclamation developed a framework to help the non-Federal partners take the next step. Feasibility studies are more detailed investigations of the technical, economic, and environmental viability of a wide range of possible actions. Basin studies help Reclamation and its partners project the demand for water in the future, the availability of water to meet that demand, and the effects that climate change has on both. Options will include mitigation actions – those actions that reduce stress on water supply systems – developed through the basin studies. Because some change is inevitable, options will also include adaptation actions to sustain the resiliency of ecosystems and the dependability of water supply systems. SECURE feasibility studies will not include recommendations regarding construction authority or appropriations. Instead, recognizing that governments at all levels face budget constraints and competing priorities for limited funding, Reclamation’s role in undertaking these studies is to work with its partners to collaboratively develop regional or basin-scale solutions. As States, Tribes, and local entities continue to take greater leadership roles in water resources investments, Reclamation expects that project sponsors will see value in partnering with the bureau to complete feasibility studies.Link---Specific---Department of EnergyEnergy and water spending are linked in the budget process---surging energy costs, especially for nukes, trade offJoseph McDade 97, former representative from PA, committee on appropriations, “Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 1998,” Report 105-190, The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 1998, represents another installment payment on the national obligation to balance the budget. At the same time, the bill advances initiatives to make government more efficient, and it preserves funding for important domestic priorities. As funding in the Energy and Water Bill declines in fiscal year 1998 relative to CBO's baseline, the bill continues to deliver on the promise of deficit reduction.Significantly, the Energy and Water Bill for fiscal year 1998 attempts to correct the fundamental imbalance in the Administration's allocation of resources among energy and water activities. The budget request for fiscal year 1998 continues to demonstrate the Administration's hostility toward the nation's water infrastructure. This institutional aversion to water projects (previously manifested in proposed Corps of Engineers policies to discontinue the Federal role in local flood control, small harbor maintenance and shore protection efforts) reflects a lack of appreciation for the value of Federal investments in water-related improvements.Flood control projects, which must pass rigorous cost- benefit analyses, are designed to protect our communities from the devastating consequences of uncontrolled flood waters. Flood control works provide a real measure of protection for homes, businesses, and lives. The terrible floods of last winter and this spring should alert us all to the importance of developing and maintaining effective flood control mechanisms. Failure to do so is clearly more costly in the long run. It has been demonstrated time and again that a relatively modest investment in preventative measures can save: untold amounts in disaster assistance payments; communities from chaotic disruption, catastrophic physical damage, and enormous financial liabilities; and, most importantly, lives.Our investments in navigation, shore protection and environmental restoration likewise yield outstanding returns. Development, operation and maintenance of our international harbors and inland waterways help the U.S. preserve its leadership in international commerce. Shoreline erosion projects protect communities and maintain a vital recreational and economic resource.Federal investment in these water-related projects is as appropriate as it is vital to the continued well-being of communities throughout the nation. Yet the Administration continues to neglect these important priorities. Specifically, the Administration: propounds policies inimical to the Federal interest in water infrastructure; underfunds water projects currently in the pipeline; and, in several instances, provides no funding whatsoever for projects well on their way toward completion. With inadequate funding, the construction schedules for water resource projects extend and their costs increase.Unfortunately, the counterweight to the budget's inattention to water resource needs is the unjustifiably high priority it accords to the Department of Energy, a sprawling bureaucratic enterprise whose present activities bear faint relation to the mission the Department was created to pursue. The Department, characterized by continuing mission creep and management disorder, lacks a clear focus and invests far too much of its limited resources in a relevance-seeking and turf- protecting effort to perpetuate itself.In addition to providing for the continued downsizing and streamlining of the Department of Energy, the Committee recommendation includes a number of management reforms intended to control costs, improve accountability, and increase efficiency. The Department's response to these reforms will help determine whether DOE should continue to exist as a cabinet-level agency.Notwithstanding the Committee's concerns surrounding management of the Department of Energy, the recommendation does support essential programs of the Department. More than $2 billion is provided for science and basic research programs at the Department of Energy. Environmental cleanup activities at Department of Energy sites are continued with funding levels over $6 billion, while $3.9 billion is provided to maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. All of these activities are continued at a level consistent with fiscal year 1997.However, the Committee did not provide the total budget request for all programs and activities. The Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 1998 includes an unrealistic increase of $2.6 billion over the Department's fiscal year 1997 appropriation. With no consultation with the Congress, the Department proposed full funding of all construction projects and a $1 billion privatization initiative for the environmental cleanup program. Both of these proposals would have benefited from early consultation with the Committee. While it is clear that the Department has several problems managing and successfully completing construction projects, incremental funding is one of the lesser concerns. With respect to the privatization proposal, the Committee spent several months unsuccessfully attempting to get thorough and comprehensive answers on the proposed privatization projects. Funding these two proposals as requested would have jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars on projects for which costs are still not well defined.The bill also terminates direct appropriations to the Tennessee Valley Authority. To provide for continuity of program management pending the implementation of the Administration's proposal to remove all appropriated programs from TVA's portfolio, the measure provides for the funding of TVA's nonpower activities with internally generated revenues and savings.Authorization for various projects and agencies funded by this bill is in various stages of the legislative process. The Committee has worked closely with jurisdictional committees to establish the funding levels recommended in the bill. Funding has been provided for certain programs in anticipation and advance of authorization in order to avoid unnecessary disruptions in the provision of government services. Government Performance and Results Act The Committee considers the full and effective implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, P.L. 103-62, to be a priority for all agencies of government.Starting with fiscal year 1999, the Results Act requires each agency to, ``prepare an annual performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency.'' Specifically, for each program activity the agency is required to establish ``performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved by a program activity'' and ``performance indicators to be used in assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity.''The Committee takes this requirement of the Results Act very seriously and plans to carefully examine agency performance goals and measures during the appropriations process. As a result, starting with the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle, the Committee will consider the progress of jurisdictional agencies in articulating clear, definitive, and results-oriented (outcome) goals and measures as it reviews requests for appropriations.The Committee suggests that agencies examine their program activities in light of their strategic goals to determine whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information. Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any requests with a view toward ensuring that budget submissions for fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years display amounts requested against program activity structures for which annual performance goals and measures have been established.TITLE IDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVILDepartment of the Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Mission In testimony before the Committee, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works stated, ``The 1998 budget would fund a program that balances a number of high priority interests and objectives. Investments in water resources infrastructure development are balanced with investments in watershed and other environmental restoration. Continued funding to complete ongoing projects and studies is balanced with investment with new high-priority infrastructure and environmental projects. Continued maintenance and rehabilitation of existing projects is balanced with construction of new water resources development projects to serve society's current and future needs.''The Committee recognizes that budgetary realities do necessitate the balancing of competing priorities. However, in many respects, the Committee believes that the budget request represents a lack of commitment by the Administration to the traditional roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: navigation, flood control, and shore protection.The amounts requested by the Administration for continuing construction of a number of navigation and flood control projects are woefully inadequate to keep those projects on efficient construction schedules, significantly increasing the total cost of those projects. In addition, for navigation projects, stretched out project completion schedules delay the economic benefits that would be derived from those projects and hurt the nation's competitiveness in the world marketplace. For flood control, delay in the completion of projects increases the risk that our citizens will be devastated by the floods that those projects were designed to prevent. The Committee has, therefore, provided additional funds in order to accelerate completion of a number of projects.In the area of shore protection, the Committee is extremely disappointed that the Administration has once again failed to request funds to continue several ongoing construction projects and studies or to initiate new studies or projects. As the Committee stated last year, shore protection projects serve the same function as other flood control projects--they protect lives and property from the impacts of flooding. Accordingly, the Committee has included funds in the bill for construction of shore protection projects, the periodic nourishment of previously constructed projects, and for planning, engineering, and design of proposed projects.The Committee is also very concerned about the reductions proposed by the Administration in the Corps of Engineers' Operation and Maintenance program. The Committee recognizes the need to more efficiently utilize the limited resources available for operation and maintenance of existing projects; however, the Committee is concerned that the budget request will result in reductions in service to the public and that no analysis has been performed of the impacts of those reductions in service. The Committee expects the Corps to use the flexibility that exists within the Operation and Maintenance program to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the public as a result of the reduced funding levels proposed for a number of projects.General Investigations Appropriation, 1997................................... $153,872,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 150,000,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 157,260,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... +3,388,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. +7,260,000The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The bill includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the need for navigation improvements on the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers below Demopolis, Alabama.Dog River, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $200,000 to accelerate work on the feasibility study of the need for navigation improvements on the Dog River in Alabama.White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a general reevaluation study of extending navigation on the White River to Newport, Arkansas.Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies of extending commercial navigation on the Red River upstream of Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana, into southwest Arkansas using funds previously appropriated for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport to Daingerfield, Texas, project.Rio Salado, Arizona.--The bill includes $540,000 for the Rio Salado feasibility study, the same as the budget request. The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to honor its commitment to the local project sponsor and complete the Rio Salado feasibility study in time for the project to be considered for authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998.Tres Rios, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue planning, engineering, and environmental analyses for the Tres Rios, Arizona, project.American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,099,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with local interests in the development of a comprehensive plan for flood control along the American River.Clear Lake Basin Watershed Restoration, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a study of wastewater improvements and ecosystem restoration in the Clear Lake Basin in California under the authority of section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, California.--The bill includes $525,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to provide technical assistance, including design, for water infrastructure improvements, particularly those aimed at minimizing damages to water systems that might occur during an earthquake, for the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre.Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers.Laguna de Santa Rosa, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of Laguna de Santa Rosa to determine if siltation has impacted its ability to act as flood control basin.Llagas Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers, using available funds, to complete a reevaluation report and develop any necessary plans and specifications for the Llagas Creek project identified in the authorized Llagas Creek Watershed Plan of the Department of Agriculture in anticipation of Corps of Engineers construction of the unconstructed elements of the Llagas Creek project.Malibu Creek, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of environmental restoration and shoreline protection in the Malibu Creek Watershed.Morro Bay Estuary, California.--The bill includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the sedimentation and tidal circulation problems in Morro Bay in California.Mugu Lagoon, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the environmental impacts associated with sediment transport, floodflows, and upstream watershed land use practices on Mugu Lagoon in California.Port of Stockton, California.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of deepening the Port of Stockton's main ship channel to forty feet.Redwood City Harbor, California.--The bill includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to determine the Federal interest, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of deepening Redwood City Harbor.Sacramento Watershed Management, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to participate in a non-Federal project sponsored by the City of Sacramento to make combined sewer improvements in the City of Sacramento to improve water quality in the Sacramento River Watershed under the authority of section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Participation by the Corps of Engineers shall include planning, technical, and design assistance as requested by the non-Federal sponsor.Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, California.--In response to the devastating floods of 1997, the Committee has added funds and directs the Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the entire flood control system within the existing study authorizations of the Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan (authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962) and the San Joaquin River and Tributaries authority (authorized by 1964 Resolution of the House Committee on Public Works). These comprehensive investigations will include: (1) preparation of a comprehensive post-flood assessment for the California Central Valley (Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin), (2) development and formulation of comprehensive plans for flood control and environmental restoration purposes, and (3) development of a hydrologic/hydraulic model of the entire system including the operation of the existing reservoirs for evaluation of the current flood control system. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act the Secretary shall transmit an interim report describing results of the post-flood assessment and the assessment of the existing flood control system and its deficiencies.San Diego Harbor, National City Marine Terminal, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a reconnaissance study of the potential for development of a Federal navigation project to deepen the existing Federal navigation channel in San Diego Harbor from the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal to the National City Marine Terminal.San Francisco Bay, California.--The bill includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the need to remove underwater rock formations in San Francisco Bay.San Francisco Bay Bar Channel, California.--The Committee has provided $600,000 for the San Francisco Bay Bar Channel feasibility study, the same as the budget request. The Committee is aware that the local sponsor for the study wishes to limit it to the need for deepening the Southampton Shoal Channel and Extension. The Committee expects the Corps to proceed with the study in compliance with the desires of the local sponsor and has renamed the study to reflect the change in emphasis.San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to address Federal participation and design assistance in the environmental restoration of the San Pablo Bay Watershed.Santa Margarita River and Tributaries, California.--The bill includes $300,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Santa Margarita River and Tributaries project, the same as the budget request, which will include an examination of the need for flood control measures along Murrieta Creek.Santa Monica Water Infrastructure Reliability, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for completion of a study to identify problems and alternative solutions for providing a more reliable water supply system during seismic events for the city of Santa Monica.Southeast Los Angeles County Water Conservation and Supply, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to provide technical assistance for the design of seismically reliable water system capital improvements for the city of Norwalk, California.Southern California Aquatic Resources, California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate Special Area Management Plans to protect aquatic resources, including wetlands, in Orange and San Diego Counties. The plans should be conducted in coordination with State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning Program, local governments, and the private sector. The plans, when complete, are to be used by the Corps of Engineers and local governments as the basis for the issuance of long-term permits.Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada.--The Committee has provided $270,000 to complete ongoing studies of watershed restoration opportunities on the California side of the Lake Tahoe Basin and $540,000 to complete similar studies on the Nevada side of the Basin.Tijuana River Valley, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the International Water and Boundary Commission, to undertake a reconnaissance study of flood control and other water resources needs in the Tijuana River Valley in California, with particular emphasis on evaluation of the flooding potential in the event of a dam break and the development of emergency flood response plans.Toulumne River, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of options for increased flood protection along the Toulumne River and its tributaries, including the reoperation of New Don Pedro Dam.Twentynine Palms, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study to identify problems and alternative solutions for providing a more dependable water supply for the Twentynine Palms Water District service area, particularly with respect to minimizing damages to water systems that might occur during an earthquake.Ventura Harbor Sand Bypass, California.--The Committee has provided $150,000 for the Ventura Harbor Sand Bypass project, the same as the budget request. Of the funds provided, $100,000 shall be used to complete a new reconnaissance study on the potential for developing a regional plan for maintaining Ventura Harbor and other existing Federal harbors in the Ventura County and Santa Barbara County area. The study shall consider the potential for beneficial uses of dredged material from maintenance dredging operations as well as other benefits including environmental restoration and storm damage reduction opportunities.Ventura-Santa Barbara Counties Shoreline Protection, California.--The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the Ventura- Santa Barbara Counties shoreline protection study.Chatfield, Cherry Creek, and Bear Creek Reservoirs, Colorado.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the potential for reallocation of storage at Chatfield, Cherry Creek, and Bear Creek Reservoirs from flood control to water supply.Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island (Rehoboth Beach/Dewey Beach), Delaware.--The bill includes $450,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Dewey Beach/Rehoboth Beach portion of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island project.Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey.--The bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Port Mahon element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project and $256,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design of the Cape May Villas element of the project.Brevard County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $154,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction engineering and design for the Brevard County project in Florida.Dade County Water Reuse Facility, Florida.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study for the Dade County Water Reuse project in Florida.Tampa Harbor, Alafia River, Florida.--The bill includes $270,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study of deepening the Alafia River channel in Tampa Harbor.Augusta, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of flooding problems in the city of Augusta, Georgia.New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct, in cooperation with local interests, a study to develop a plan for the final disposition of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.Savannah Harbor Tidegate, Georgia.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to examine alternatives for final disposition of the Savannah Harbor tidegate.Savannah River Comprehensive Study, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a comprehensive study of the Savannah River basin authorized in Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee is aware that the local sponsor for the Savannah Harbor Expansion project has elected to conduct the feasibility study under the provisions of Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Committee supports this initiative to expedite the project development process. The Committee has provided $800,000 for this project in fiscal year 1998, the same as the budget request. These funds may be used by the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the project upon submission of the feasibility report to the Secretary of the Army.Illinois and Michigan Canal, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $175,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a feasibility study of improvements at Lock 14 on the Illinois and Michigan Canal.Mississippi River, Alexander County, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study to determine the potential benefits to navigation and flood control associated with improvements to the Len Small Levee.Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies to address flood control and navigation issues along the Illinois River in Peoria, Illinois.Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate the feasibility study of the Waukegan Harbor project.Wood River, Illinois.--The bill includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to analyze the need for rehabilitation of the existing Wood River levee system.Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana.--The bill includes $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications for the Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch project in Indiana.Grayson Lake, Kentucky.--The bill includes $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the possibility of using Grayson Lake as a water supply source for the city of Grayson, Kentucky.Kentucky Flooding, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided funds for the Corps of Engineers to initiate reconnaissance studies to address flooding problems in Augusta, Dover, Frankfort, Greenup, Olive Hill, and Russell, Kentucky.Licking River Watershed, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate individual reconnaissance studies to investigate structural and non-structural solutions to flooding problems in communities along the Licking River impacted by flooding in March of 1997, including Falmouth, Butler, and Cynthiana, Kentucky.Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky.--The bill includes $470,000, the same as the budget request, for the Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, flood control project. In light of the recent floods which resulted in damages to thousands of homes and businesses in the area, the Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to continue with the feasibility phase of this study, which is essential to the safety of metropolitan Louisville.Rapides and St. Landry Parishes, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems in Rapides and St. Landry Parishes and other areas west of the West Atchafalaya Basin protection levee in central Louisiana.Wallace Lake, Louisiana.--The Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of flooding problems in the Wallace Lake area in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.Havre de Grace, Maryland.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of water resources problems in the area of Havre de Grace, Maryland, including shoaling of navigation channels, shoreline erosion flooding, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and degraded water quality.Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a feasibility study of extending the Pascagoula Harbor 42-foot channel into Bayou Casotte.Walker River Basin, Nevada.--The Committee has provided an additional $280,000 to enable the Corps of Engineers to develop additional information on the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the Walker River Basin.Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--The bill includes $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study for the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet project.Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.-- The bill includes an additional $400,000 for preconstruction engineering and design for the Absecon Island element of the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet project.Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study for the Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project.Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The bill includes an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point project.Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The bill includes $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study for the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet project.Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study of the Cliffwood Beach element of the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay project.South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $510,000 for the South River, Raritan River Basin project, the same as the budget request. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to include the Old Bridge section of Sayreville in the project.Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey.--The bill includes $500,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design for the Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet project.Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of the water resources needs, including flood control and environmental restoration, of the Upper Passaic River and its tributaries in Long Hill Township, Morris County, New Jersey.Upper Rockaway River, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of the water resources needs, including flood control and environmental restoration, of the Upper Rockaway River in Morris County, New Jersey.Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook Marine Terminal, New York and New Jersey.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for a 45-foot navigation channel as authorized in Section 301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Flushing Bay and Creek, New York.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility study for the Flushing Bay and Creek, New York, project.Montauk Point, New York.--The bill includes $200,000 for the feasibility phase of the Montauk Point, New York, study.New York Harbor Anchorages, New York.--The bill includes $100,000 for initiation of the feasibility study for the Red Hook Flats Anchorage Area.South Shore of Staten Island, New York.--The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility phase of the South Shore of Staten Island study.Lockwoods Folly Inlet, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the effects of the construction of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the closure of the Eastern Channel on the water quality in the vicinity of Lockwoods Folly River and Inlet.Belpre, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies of the potential for waterfront development in the vicinity of Belpre, Ohio.Ohio River Riverfront Restoration, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of land and infrastructure requirements along the Ohio River for port and industrial development, and recreational and environmental restoration opportunities.Flood Damage Reduction Measures, Portland, Oregon.--Within the funds provided for the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the Portland Metropolitan Regional Government, the USGS, and the National Weather Service, to evaluate and recommend potential flood damage reduction measures for the Portland area, such as non-structural alternatives, flood warning systems, floodplain evacuation, and emergency response plans.Sunbury, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the existing flood control system in Sunbury, Pennsylvania.Turtle Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $100,000 each for the Corps of Engineers to initiate reconnaissance studies of ecosystem restoration needs in the Lyons Creek, Upper Turtle Creek, and Brush Creek Basins of the Turtle Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania.Beaver River, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design activities associated with a comprehensive plan being developed for the main channel of the Beaver River and its tributaries near the Boroughs of New Brighton, Rochester, and Bridgewater in Pennsylvania.Lower West Branch Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $500,000 to modify the reconnaissance study for the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River Basin, Environmental Restoration, Pennsylvania, to address the wide range of complex water resources problems in the large study area which includes Clinton, Northumberland, Lycoming, Sullivan, Tioga, and Union Counties, Pennsylvania.Susquehanna River Levees, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study to modify the existing flood control project at Williamsport, Pennsylvania, to provide flood protection measures for expansion of the Williamsport Industrial Park.Nolichucky Watershed, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration and flood control needs in the Nolichucky Watershed in Tennessee.North Chickamauga Creek Watershed, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study for ecosystem restoration and flood control in the North Chickamauga Watershed, Hamilton County, Tennessee.Hunting Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for preconstruction engineering and design activities on the Hunting Bayou project in Texas. The funds are to be utilized for reimbursement of the local sponsor and Corps of Engineers oversight activities in accordance with Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.--Within available funds, the Corps of Engineers is directed to undertake a study of the feasibility of constructing and maintaining the Packery Channel on the southern portion of Mustang Island as authorized by Section 442 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Sabine and Neches River Channels, Texas.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of expanding the existing navigation channels in the Sabine and Neches Rivers.White Oak Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $150,000 for the White Oak Bayou project. The funds are to be utilized for reimbursement of the local sponsor and Corps of Engineers oversight activities in accordance with Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia.--The bill includes $286,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility study for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia, project.Powell River Watershed, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility study of ecosystem restoration needs in Ely and Puckett Creeks in the Powell River Watershed in Virginia.John W. Flanagan Dam and Reservoir, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of the potential for reallocation of storage at the John W. Flanagan Dam and Reservoir project to water supply purposes.Lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture River, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study of the Lake Merriweather, Virginia, project authorized in Section 507 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Prince William County Watershed, Virginia.--The bill includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of water resources problems related to wetlands protection, flooding, erosion, environmental degradation, and water quality in the Prince William County Watershed in Virginia.Monongahela River, Fairmont, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $350,000 for preconstruction engineering and design activities for the waterfront development project at the CSX site in Fairmont, West Virginia.Upper Monongahela River, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of port development opportunities along the upper Monongahela River in Monongahela County, West Virginia.Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the same as the budget request. Within the funds provided, the Corps of Engineers is urged to: use $50,000 to study the effects of future development on flooding in Winchester, Kentucky; use $25,000 to provide technical assistance for levee construction in Monterey, Kentucky; and use $40,000 to provide technical assistance related to dam sites in the Gunpowder Creek Basin in Boone County, Kentucky.Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the Planning Assistance to States program, the same as the budget request. Within the funds provided the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to work with the Riverside County, California, Flood Control and Water Conservation District to complete the floodplain maintenance plan for Murrieta Creek. Within the funds provided, the Committee also directs the Corps of Engineers to participate in the development of Special Area Management Plans in coordination and association with the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning Program in southern California.Research and Development.--The Committee has provided $27,000,000 for Research and Development activities, the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 1997. Within the funds provided, $200,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to continue the Construction Technology Transfer project.The amount provided for Research and Development also includes $2,000,000 for development of strategies for the control of zebra mussels at public facilities, the same as the budget request.Construction, General Appropriation, 1997................................... $1,081,942,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 1,062,470,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 1,475,892,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... +393,950,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. +413,422,000The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: Rillito River, Arizona.--Subsequent to authorization of the Rillito River and Associated Streams, Arizona, project, severe flooding has caused damages to public infrastructure and private property along Tanque Verde Creek immediately upstream of its confluence with the Rillito River, between Craycroft and Sabino Canyon Roads. The Corps of Engineers is directed, as part of the Rillito River project, to accomplish a limited reevaluation report of Tanque Creek immediately upstream of and including Craycroft Road Bridge to determine the advisability of extending the bank protection and related measures. The analysis will be consistent with that of the Chief of Engineers' report for the Rillito Creek project to include full use of location benefits for economic justification purposes. The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for this work and the construction of pedestrian bridges required for safety purposes.Arkansas River, Tucker Creek, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Faulkner County Levee #1.Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware that the reliability of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system is threatened by low river stages on the Mississippi River and that dredging alone will not provide a solution to this problem. The solution developed by the Corps of Engineers is the construction of a new lock and dam near the confluence of the White River entrance channel with the Mississippi River. Because of the need to protect the investment that has been made in the McClellan-Kerr system, the Committee has provided $25,000,000, $15,000,000 above the amount requested by the Administration, to expedite construction of this important project.Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, Texas.--The Committee has provided $1,400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas, to Denison Dam, Texas, bank stabilization project. Of the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for plans and specifications for a bendway weir demonstration project at the U.S. Highway 271 bridge between Oklahoma and Texas.American River Watershed (Natomas), California.--The Committee had provided $10,000,000 for partial reimbursement to the local sponsor of the Federal share of the cost of construction of flood control improvements undertaken by the sponsor in the Natomas area of Sacramento. The Committee has also provided $100,000 for initiation of the Ueda Parkway feature of the project.Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction, California.--The Committee has provided $9,300,000 for the Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction project to accelerate levee reconstruction in reaches that failed or were weakened in the floods of January of 1997.Norco Bluffs, California.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for initiation of construction of the Norco Bluffs, California, project.Prado Dam, California.--The Committee is aware that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works approved the Prado Dam element of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project as a separable element pursuant to Section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Committee further understands that the Corps will be modifying the Local Cooperation Agreement consistent with Section 309. The Corps of Engineers is urged to proceed expeditiously on this matter and to continue design of the Prado Dam work in fiscal year 1998 so that it can proceed to construction by fiscal year 1999.San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the environmental review and continue preconstruction engineering and design for the Baldwin Phase of the San Francisco Bay to Stockton project.San Lorenzo River, California.--The Committee has provided $4,200,000 for the San Lorenzo River project, the same as the budget request. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the Section 1135 environmental restoration project for the San Lorenzo River concurrently with the flood control project.San Timoteo Creek, California.--The bill includes $5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the San Timoteo Creek feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project.Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report for the Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, project.Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, California.-- The Committee has provided $2,750,000 for the Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction project to accelerate work in 3.7 miles of levee on the right bank of the Sacramento River between the City of Colusa and the Tisdale Bypass. Of the funds provided, $750,000 is intended to be used to reinforce and protect from future damage and potential failure the recently repaired levees within Site B, the so-called Back Levee of Reclamation District 108, and to identify and initiate work on additional sites in the project area requiring reconstruction.Faulkner's Island, Connecticut.--Within available funds, the bill includes $500,000 for the Faulkner's Island, Connecticut, project. Using these funds, along with funds appropriated for the project in fiscal year 1997 that will be carried over into fiscal year 1998, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to award a continuing contract in fiscal year 1998 for construction of the Faulkner's Island project.Broward County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the General Design Memorandum for renourishment of the Broward County, Florida, project currently being prepared by the local sponsor.Canaveral Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional $3,500,000 for the sand bypass project at Canaveral Harbor.Canaveral Harbor Deepening, Florida.--The Committee has provided $640,000 for reimbursement to the local sponsor for the Federal share of revetment work completed by the sponsor and $1,000,000 for widening of the entrance channel.Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $9,400,000 for the Dade County, Florida project, $1,215,000 above the budget request. The funds provided include $4,400,000 for the Surfside feature of the project, $2,000,000 for the Bal Harbour element of the project, $1,000,000 for modifications to the north jetty at Government Cut, $1,000,000 for the Sunny Isle feature of the project, and $1,000,000 for continuing engineering and design of the project.Lee County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report for the Estero and Gasparilla elements of the Lee County, Florida, project.Palm Beach County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $5,762,000 for the Palm Beach County, Florida, project, which includes $2,462,000 for the Boca Raton element of the project and $3,300,000 for the Ocean Ridge element of the project.Sarasota County, Florida.--The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the City of Venice, Florida, from available funds for the non-Federal share of the construction of an artificial reef, stormwater outfalls, and such other activities as the Corps deems appropriate.St. Johns County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the General Reevaluation Report and initiate plans and specifications for the St. Johns County, St. Augustine Beach, Florida, project.Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to design and construct an environmental dispersal barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the spread of exotic species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River ecosystems.Des Plaines Wetlands Demonstration Project, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to participate in the Des Plaines Wetlands Demonstration project, which was reauthorized in Section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the East St. Louis and Vicinity, Interior Flood Control, project.McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers plans to use $4,922,000 in carryover funds in fiscal year 1998 to continue engineering and design of the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs project.Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Illinois.--The amount provided for the Melvin Price Lock and Dam project includes $500,000 for the design and construction of exhibits at the visitor center which is currently under construction.North Branch of the Chicago River, Illinois.--The bill includes $39,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the Village of Deerfield for its costs associated with the completion of a feasibility study for the project and $500,000 for remaining work on reservoirs 15, 27, and 29A.O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois.--The Committee supports the Corps of Engineers' plan to reprogram the funds necessary for completion of the O'Hare Reservoir project.Burns Waterway Harbor Major Rehabilitation, Indiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 to complete construction of the Burns Waterway Harbor major rehabilitation project.Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for completion of the initial nourishment phase of the Indiana Shoreline Erosion project.Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the continuation of construction of the Indianapolis Central Waterfront project.Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.--The bill includes $3,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete construction of the Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, project.Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana.--The Committee has provided $1,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue rehabilitation of six flood protection projects along the Ohio River in southern Indiana.Salyersville, Kentucky.--The bill includes $2,050,000 to complete construction of the Salyersville, Kentucky, project.Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake environmental infrastructure projects in southern and eastern Kentucky as authorized by Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Hurricane Protection, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided additional funds for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project to be used for landside drainage on lakefront levees in Jefferson Parish, fronting protection at pumping stations in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, and the continuation of construction of parallel protection along the London and Orleans Avenue canals.Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $15,297,000 for continued construction of the Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, project. The additional funds are available for the acquisition of mitigation lands, the construction of recreation features at Locks and Dams 3, 4, and 5, and the construction of dikes and capouts along the waterway.Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana.--Section 108 of the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and Section 533 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized and directed the Secretary of the Army to proceed with engineering, design, and construction of projects to provide for flood control and improvements to rainfall drainage systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes in Louisiana. Construction of the project is being delayed, and at this time only a small portion of the project is being implemented. The Committee considers this to be most inefficient and believes it will result in higher costs to the Federal government. Continued delays in implementing this project will result in continued disastrous loss of life and property such as that experienced as a result of the rainfall flooding in southeast Louisiana in May of 1995. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army is directed to proceed immediately with design and construction of the Southeast Louisiana project and, consistent with authorized appropriation ceilings, is directed to award continuing contracts beginning in fiscal year 1998. The Committee has provided $47,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the project.Red River Below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for reinforcement of the Twelvemile Bayou Revetment to eliminate the bank erosion threat to the integrity of the Federal levee system.Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program, Maryland.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate work on the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program authorized in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Flint River, Michigan.--The bill includes $875,000 for the Corps of Engineers to replace the inflatable dam on the Flint River in Michigan as authorized by section 329 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.--The Committee has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin detailed design and plans and specifications for the Knife River Harbor, Minnesota, project.Jackson County, Mississippi.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for the Jackson County alternative water supply system authorized in Section 504 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The funds are to be used for construction of a new water treatment plant and related transmission pipelines.Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction of phase 2 of the Pascagoula Harbor project.New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $600,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of the Port Jersey Channel project.Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey.-- The bill includes $3,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete engineering and design and initiate construction of the Lower Basin and Stony Brook portions of the Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin project. Within the funds provided, $100,000 shall be used to reevaluate alternative plans for the Upper Basin portion of the project.Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $15,116,000 for the Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, project, the same as the budget request. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to consider a proposal to remove the dilapidated pier in Long Branch, New Jersey, as part of the ongoing project to address safety concerns related to construction of the project with the pier in place. In addition, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to consider a proposal to extend the Ocean Grove, New Jersey, fishing pier as part of the project in order to mitigate impacts on the pier by construction of the project.Hudson River, Athens, New York.--The bill includes $8,700,000 for design and construction of a navigation channel on the Hudson River near Athens, New York.Hudson River Habitat Restoration, New York.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to expedite completion of the Hudson River Habitat Restoration feasibility study and initiate work authorized in Section 551 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for the initiation of the Phase II dredging of the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels navigation project to 45 feet.Wilmington Harbor Navigation Projects, North Carolina.--The budget request includes funds for three separate navigation improvement projects for Wilmington Harbor in North Carolina: the Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening project; the Cape Fear- Northeast (Cape Fear) River project; and the Wilmington Harbor- Northeast Cape Fear River project. The Committee is aware that the consolidation of these three projects into a single construction effort would produce significant savings from the resulting construction efficiencies. Therefore, the Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to proceed with construction of the three projects as a single project requiring one Project Cooperation Agreement. The Committee has provided $2,430,000 for the initiation of the combined project in fiscal year 1998.Buford-Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin the process of acquiring flowage easements from willing sellers as authorized by Section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate activities associated with the rehabilitation of the Lower Girard Lake Dam as authorized by Section 507 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Johnstown, Pennsylvania (Major Rehabilitation).--The Committee has provided an additional $164,000 for design and construction of the Conemaugh River Urban Greenway Trail.Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes an additional $3,000,000 for planning, engineering, and design of the Green Ridge section, and an additional $2,000,000 for planning, engineering, and design of the Plot section of the Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, project. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to budget in subsequent fiscal years for construction of the Green Ridge and Plot sections as part of the Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania project.Lackawanna River, Olyphant, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake activities leading to construction of flood control measures at Dickson City, Pennsylvania as part of the Lackawanna River, Olyphant, project. The Committee directs that the Secretary of the Army provide Dickson City, Pennsylvania, with the same levels of protection as provided to Olyphant, Pennsylvania.Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $339,000 for the Corps of Engineers to design and implement an early flood warning system for Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake work at the East Central Incinerator site under the authority of Section 566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure Program, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $30,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure Program. Of the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for Hollidaysburg Borough stormwater and wastewater improvements; $200,000 is for the Northern Blair County Regional Sewer Authority; $300,000 is for Taylor Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania; $1,000,000 is for Greenfield Township sewer improvements; $5,500,000 is for Chestnut Ridge Municipal Authority wastewater improvements; $10,000,000 is for work in the Ohio River watershed of south central Pennsylvania; and $10,000,000 is for design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe Counties in Pennsylvania.Sunbury, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake engineering and design for modifications to the pump stations at the Sunbury, Pennsylvania, local flood protection project.Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate activities associated with the environmental restoration of the Susquehanna River as authorized by Section 303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992.Williamsport, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $225,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake necessary repairs to the flume and conduit at Hagerman's Run for the flood control project at Williamsport, Pennsylvania.Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $2,900,000 for the Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs wetlands preservation project authorized in Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The funds are to be used for preserving and enhancing the wetland area, and planning and design, but not construction, of an environmental education center.Hamilton County, Tennessee.--The bill includes $1,500,000 for design and construction of the Hamilton County, Tennessee, bank stabilization project authorized by Section 574 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.East Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the initiation of construction of the East Ridge flood control project authorized by Section 572 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Brays Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for construction of the Brays Bayou, Texas, project by local interests in accordance with the provisions of Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Red River Below Denison Dam (Bowie County Levee), Texas.-- The Committee has provided $900,000 for design and construction for restoration of the Bowie County Levee to the same level of protection as the adjoining Miller County Levee in Arkansas.Neabsco Creek, Prince William County, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $800,000 for design and construction of a flood control project on upper Neabsco Creek as authorized by Section 576 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.--The Committee has previously expressed concern about the level of spending for Pacific Northwest salmon recovery efforts and the lack of clear evidence of benefits resulting from that spending. Moreover, the budget request appears to reflect the pursuit of multiple restoration strategies, some of which may not be adopted. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended $85,000,000 for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program, $42,000,000 below the budget request.Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big and Sandy River and Upper Cumberland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia.--In addition to the amounts provided in the budget request, the bill includes: $16,000,000 to continue construction of the Harlan, Kentucky element of the project; $4,690,000 to continue construction of the Williamsburg, Kentucky, element of the project; $7,200,000 to continue construction of the Middlesboro, Kentucky, element of the project; $5,800,000 to continue construction of the Pike County, Kentucky element of the project; $5,500,000 to continue the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the project; $500,000 to initiate a Detailed Project Report for the Buchanan County element of the project; and $400,000 for a flood warning system for the Levisa Fork Basin element of the project.Marmet Locks and Dam, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $1,830,000 for the Marmet Locks and Dam project for the Corps of Engineers to complete engineering and design and initiate real estate acquisition.Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure Program, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure program. Of the funds provided, at least $750,000 shall be allocated to the Krouts Creek Storm Drainage project.West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control project authorized in Section 581 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Of the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for the development of a management plan and the initiation of individual project reports for non-structural opportunities for reducing flooding in the lower Allegheny River Basin of western Pennsylvania, including the communities of Meyersdale, Connellsville, Benson-Hooversville, Clymer, and New Bethlehem; $100,000 is for flood control on Pentz Run, Dubois, Pennsylvania; $125,000 is for flood control on Bloody Run, Everett, Pennsylvania; $50,000 is for Newton Hamilton Borough, Mifflin County, Pennsylvania; $75,000 is for flood control on Six Mile Run, Bedford County, Pennsylvania; $150,000 is for flood control on Muddy Run, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania; $500,000 is for flood control in Logan Township/Altoona, Pennsylvania; and $1,000,000 is for preconstruction engineering and design for flood control measures, including, but not limited to (and only if ultimately necessary) flood warning systems and emergency evacuation plans, in the communities of Philippi and Belington, West Virginia.Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The Committee has provided $11,000,000 for the Section 14 program, $3,500,000 more than the budget request. Within the funds provided, the bill includes: $500,000 for a streambank protection project at Ditto Landing in Huntsville, Alabama; $390,000 for a streambank erosion project along the Ohio River in Tell City, Indiana; $500,000 for streambank restoration at Sugar Creek, Troy, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; $100,000 to remove a large island gravel bar in the Susquehanna River at the outlet of the Hepburn Street Pump Station, Williamsport, Pennsylvania; $100,000 for dredging the Lackawanna River and for stream bank restoration at Carbondale, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania; $100,000 for stream bank restoration and placement of rip rap to control erosion and protect residential properties at Lycoming Creek, Trout Run, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania; $106,000 for stream bank stabilization by replacement of 500 feet of rip rap at Dingman Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania; $118,000 for stream bank stabilization and debris and gravel removal at Hop Bottom Borough, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania; $10,000 to rebuild a creek bank at La Porte, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $50,000 for stream bank restoration and gravel bar removal at Satterlee Creek, Athens Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; $25,000 for a streambank erosion protection project along Elk Creek in Hills Grove, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for dredging Loyal Sock Creek through Dushore and a ponding area on the Loyal Sock at the junction of Route 87 and Route 487 at Dushore, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $500,000 for a streambank erosion project at Scotts Hill Park, Scotts Hill, Tennessee; $500,000 for streambank erosion control measures at Mousetail Landing State Park, Perry County, Tennessee; $770,000 for a streambank erosion protection project on the Cumberland River (river miles 193.8 to 197.5) in Nashville, Tennessee; $325,000 for a streambank erosion control project at the Loudoun County, Tennessee, municipal facilities; $300,000 for streambank erosion control measures along Beaver Creek in Bristol, Tennessee; and $800,000 for a streambank erosion control project in Moundsville, West Virginia.The bill also includes $1,000,000 for the project for bank stabilization, St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana, including recreation and pedestrian access features as authorized by Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program, $14,500,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided, the bill includes: $3,900,000 for the Muscle Shoals, Alabama, project; $2,000,000 to reimburse the local sponsor for the Lake Elsinore, California, project; $875,000 for completion of engineering and design and initiation of construction of the San Pedro Creek, California, project; $774,000 for the Mission Zanja Creek, California, project; $1,440,000 for construction of the Magpie Creek, California, project; $1,000,000 for the Northern California Streams, Winters and Vicinity, California, project; $50,000 for appraisal investigations of Blockhouse Creek, Fishing Creek, Little Six Mile Creek, Nine Mile Creek, and Trout River in Jacksonville, Florida; $1,200,000 for construction of the Cedar River (Wills Branch), Florida, project; $1,178,000 for the installation of floodgates on the McHenry and Algonquin Dams on the Fox River in Illinois; $350,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along Deer Creek in Cook County, Illinois; $250,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along Stony Creek, Illinois; $200,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along Tinley Creek in Illinois; $1,125,000 for construction of the North Libertyville Estates, Illinois, project; $100,000 for construction of the Flatrock River project in Rushville, Indiana; $55,000 for plans and specifications for the Pipe Creek project in Alexandria, Indiana; $100,000 for completion of the feasibility study and initiation of plans and specifications for the White River project in Anderson, Indiana; $50,000 each for studies of flooding problems in Lawrenceburg, Burgin, Georgetown, and Millersburg, Kentucky; $75,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems in Silver Grove, Kentucky; $165,000 for construction of the Bardstown, Kentucky, Water Treatment Plant floodwall; $100,000 for completion of plans and specifications for the Lebanon Junction, Kentucky, floodwall project; $640,000 for construction of the Cy Bend, Jackson, Kentucky, project; $660,000 for studies of flooding problems in Jefferson and St. Tammany Parishes in Louisiana, including the W-11/W-12Basins, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Unnamed Bayou; Little Bayou Castine, and Galvez Street; $100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems on Mud Creek, Hendersonville, North Carolina; $3,741,000 for construction of the Pender (Logan Creek), Nebraska, flood control project; $150,000 for a study of flooding problems in Ponca, Nebraska; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersrey, project; $120,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Poplar Brook, New Jersey, project; $250,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along Cazenovia Creek in New York; $100,000 for a study of the Buffalo Creek, New York, project; $400,000 for construction of a concrete retaining wall, replacement of sluice pipes, removal of sedimentation, and installation of retaining walls at a bridge on Towanda Creek, Canton, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; $2,100,000 for construction of a flood protection dike, storm water pump station, discharge pipe, rip rap and storm drain at Montoursville, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania; $5,000,000 for construction of a flood protection dike on Loyal Sock Creek to accommodate a new airport access road at the Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems in Eastlake, Ohio; $275,000 for a feasibility study of the Lake Carl Blackwell flood control project in Oklahoma; $800,000 for construction of the Emily/ Timothy Residential Area, Knoxville, Tennessee, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems along Richland Creek in Morgantown, Tennessee; $100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along the Doe River in Carter County, Tennessee; $300,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along Walnut and Browder Creeks in Springtown, Texas; $300,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along Lick Creek and the Clinch River in Russell and Dickenson Counties in Virginia; and $100,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Snoqualmie River flood control project.Clearing and Snagging for Flood Control (Section 208).--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Section 208 program, $1,500,000 more than the budget request. From within the funds provided, the bill includes: $500,000 for a project to remove sediment from Blackwood Creek in California; $500,000 for a project to remove sediment from Ward Creek in California; and $50,000 to clear debris from Saw Mill Creek in the Borough of Milford, Pensylvania.Small Beach Erosion Control Projects (Section 103).--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 103 program, the same as the budget request. From within the funds provided, the bill includes: $100,000 for a study of beach erosion control measures at the former U.S. Coast Guard seaplane base in Miami, Florida; and $800,000 to complete the Shelter Island/ Ram Island Causeway project in New York.The Committee recognizes the serious erosion problems being experienced on the east end of Dauphin Island, Alabama. To counter this threat to property and habitat, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers, acting in coordination with non- Federal interests, to initiate a beach restoration project on the east end of Dauphin Island, Alabama, utilizing alternative sand recapture technologies.Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has provided $11,400,000 for the Section 107 program, $6,400,000 more than the budget request. From within the funds provided, the bill includes: $250,000 for planning associated with the project to deepen the West Turning Basin at Canaveral Harbor in Florida; $150,000 for a feasibility study for construction of a harbor of refuge at Duluth (McQuade Road) Harbor, Minnesota; $1,500,000 for construction of a harbor of refuge at Taconite Harbor, Minnesota; $3,500,000 for construction of a harbor of refuge at Two Harbors, Minnesota; $50,000 for completion of the feasibility study for the Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Buffalo Inner Harbor, New York, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Union Ship Canal, New York, project; and $31,000 for a feasibility study of expanding the turning basin at the Port of Morrow, Oregon, project.Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $21,175,000 for the section 1135 program, $7,000,000 more than the budget request. Within the funds provided, the bill includes: $2,770,000 for construction of the Ajo Detention Basin project in Arizona; $2,100,000 for completion of plans and specifications and the initiation of land acquisition for the Gunnerson Pond, California, project; $500,000 for completion of plans and specifications and initiation of construction for the Pine Flat Dam Turbine Bypass, California, project; $150,000 for a project modification plan for the Wildcat-San Pablo Creeks, California, project; $1,350,000 for design and construction of the Middle Creek, California, project; $200,000 for construction of manatee protection features at Canaveral Locks in Florida; $3,133,000 for construction of the Lower Amazon Creek Restoration and Protection project in Oregon; $1,000,000 for the Mecklenburg County Streambank Stabilization and Restoration project in North Carolina; $1,000,000 for an environmental restoration project at Lake Wallenpuapack, Wayne County, Pennsylvania; $1,052,000 for completion of plans and specifications and initiation of construction of the Bear Creek Fish and Wildlife Restoration project in Washington; $450,000 to initiate work on the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration project in Washington; $400,000 for the feasibility phase of the Hiram Chittendam Locks fish passage project in Washington; and $120,000 to initiate and complete the Sammamish River weir restoration project in Washington.Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized a new program under which the Corps of Engineers could carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects if the Secretary of the Army determines that such projects will improve the quality of the environment, are in the public interest, and are cost-effective. The Committee has provided $8,900,000, $6,900,000 above the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, the bill includes: $500,000 for design and construction of an aquatic ecosystem restoration project on the Huntsville Spring Branch in Huntsville, Alabama; $1,000,000 for the project to remove sediments from upper Newport Bay in California; $1,000,000 for the cleanup of the abandoned Penn Mine site in California; $600,000 for the Upper Truckee River restoration program in California; $750,000 for the Santa Rosa Vernal Pools, California, demonstration project; $250,000 for the Fairfield Streams and Suisun Marsh Watershed project; $200,000 for the Clear Lake Basin Watershed Restoration project in California; $250,000 for the environmental restoration of Rose Bay in Florida; $500,000 for the environmental restoration of Indian River Lagoon in Florida; $500,000 for design and construction of an ecosystem restoration project along the Lower Cumberland River in Kentucky; $500,000 for work associated with development of a plan to eliminate combined sewer overflows in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; $500,000 for the Upper Jordan River Restoration project in Utah; and $500,000 for the Decker Lake Restoration in Utah.Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The Committee has provided an additional $400,000 for the Corps of Engineer to initiate a study for a possible aquatic restoration project at Hamilton Army Airfield in Marin County, California. Flood Control, Mississippi River and TributariesArkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee Appropriation, 1997................................... $330,374,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 266,000,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 285,450,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... -44,924,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. +19,450,000 Note.--The fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes $20,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-18. The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: Channel Improvement.--The Committee recognizes the importance of the use of dikes in maintaining the navigation channel on the Mississippi River and supports their continued use. The Committee is also aware that on rare occasions dikes can inhibit access to the main channel from private and public boat ramps located in the vicinity of dikes as a result of deposition that occurs and results in the formation of sand bars. The Committee has been advised that such a situation now exists for a boat ramp that is located on the left descending bank of the Mississippi River at river mile 798.5 between Forked Deer dikes 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform necessary dredging from the boat ramp to the main channel of the Mississippi River.Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $13,500,000 for the Mississippi Delta Region project, $2,000,000 above the budget request. The additional funds will permit the Corps of Engineers to initiate work on the Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge relocation. If this work is not started in fiscal year 1998, the schedule for completion of the project will slip by two years.Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee has provided $34,738,000 for the Mississippi River Levees element of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, $10,500,000 more than the budget request. Of the funds provided, up to $9,000,000 shall be used to accelerate completion of work to bring mainline levees up to grade, including work to advance construction of the levees at Mayersville, Mississippi, and Lake Providence, Louisiana, and work to complete levee slide repairs north of Lake Providence, Louisiana. In addition, $1,500,000 shall be used to advance construction of the Commerce to Birds Point levee in Missouri.Sardis Lake, Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,900,000 for the Sardis Lake project to permit the Corps of Engineers to complete the dredging of Shady Cove Marina.Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.-- The Committee has provided $15,000,000, $5,000,000 more than the budget request, for the Demonstration Erosion Control Program, a continuation of a joint effort by the Vicksburg District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi. The funds provided will permit the Corps of Engineers to undertake construction work in the following watersheds: Abiaca Creek, Batupan Bogue, Black Creek, Coldwater Creek, Cane-Mussacana Creek, Hurricane-Wolfe Creek, Hickahala- Senatobia Creek, Hotophia Creek, Long Creek, Pelucia Creek, Otoucalofa Creek, and the Yalobusha River. Design of future work, acquisition of real estate, and monitoring of results will be accomplished for all watersheds in order to facilitate work in fiscal year 1998 and for future work as required for completion of the program. The Committee expects the Administration to continue to request funds for this important project.Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware of the severe groundwater depletion problem in eastern Arkansas, particularly in the Grand Prairie and Bayou Meto areas. This problem has caused and will continue to cause irreparable damage to the alluvial aquifer. The Committee believes the Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, project reauthorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 would provide the much-needed solution to this problem. Therefore, from within available funds, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue design on the Grand Prairie portion of the project and initiate a reevaluation on the Bayou Meto Basin portion. Operation and Maintenance, General Appropriation, 1997................................... $1,866,015,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 1,618,000,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 1,726,955,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... -139,060,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. +108,955,000 Note.--The fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes $19,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 104-208 and $150,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-18. The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to use funds provided in this act to conduct the measures required by the April 18, 1997, Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the long-term operation of Isabella Reservoir in Kern County, California. The Committee further expects the Corps of Engineers to identify the least costly actions available, including, whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships with other Federal and non-Federal agencies and organizations, so that the Corps can continue to operate and maintain Isabella Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water conservation purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract among the United States of America and various public agencies.Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The Committee has provided additional funds for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project for the completion of recreation facilities at Howard Hansen Dam.Morro Bay Harbor, California.--The bill includes $3,200,000 for maintenance dredging of Morro Bay Harbor in California.Anclote River, Florida.--The bill includes $1,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to address the backlog of maintenance dredging in the Anclote River in Florida.Fort Myers Beach, Florida.--The Committee has included language in the bill directing the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the local sponsor of the Fort Myers Beach, Florida, project for maintenance dredging performed by the local sponsor to open the authorized channel to navigation using $375,000 appropriated in the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for that purpose.Wolf Creek Dam--Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an additional $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study for a bridge to replace the current route of U.S. 127 at Wolf Creek Dam. In addition, the Committee is concerned about the amount of solid waste entering Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. Within the amounts available, the Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, project, with which the Secretary of the Army is directed to implement measures upstream of Lake Cumberland to intercept and dispose of solid waste.Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, Louisiana.--The bill includes $2,400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform dredging of Baptiste Collette and make repairs to the Baptiste jetty.Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,478,000 for the Red River Waterway project to maintain 24 hour per day lock operations and to perform additional revetment repairs to maintain the integrity of the navigation channel.Cohasset Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided $1,342,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging of Cohasset Harbor in Massachusetts.Cedar River Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee has provided $2,377,000 for repair of the east breakwater at Cedar River Harbor in Michigan.Alternative Technology Project, Duluth, Minnesota.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the project to develop and implement alternative methods for decontamination and disposal of contaminated dredged material at the Port of Duluth, Minnesota, authorized in Section 541 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Little Falls, Mississippi River, Minnesota.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a project for clearing, snagging, and sediment removal on the Mississippi River at Little Falls, Minnesota, and, if the project is found to be feasible, to complete it under the authority of Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act of 1945 in accordance with Section 106 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake engineering and design activities related to the relocation of facilities impacted by floodings.Tuckerton Creek, New Jersey.--The bill includes $650,000 for maintenance dredging of Tuckerton Creek in New Jersey.Buffalo Harbor Environmental Dredging, New York.--The bill includes $125,000 for the Corps of Engineers to investigate the dredging of contaminated sediments located outside of and adjacent to the Federal navigation channels in Buffalo Harbor and in the Buffalo River.Mamaroneck Harbor, New York.--The bill includes $6,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging main and tributary channels and anchorage areas of Mamaroneck Harbor project, including justified advance maintenance dredging to -10 feet MLW.Owasco Outlet, Owasco Seawall, New York.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for study, design, and the preparation of plans and specifications for rehabilitation of the seawall at the outlet of Owasco Lake.Ports of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.--The Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to address the critical backlog of maintenance dredging in authorized navigation channels in the Ports of New York and New Jersey.Sag Harbor, New York--The Committee has provided $90,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the need for repair of the breakwaters at Sag Harbor, New York.Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for mosquito control activities in the vicinity of Williston, North Dakota.Bonneville Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington.--The Committee has provided $115,000 for the Corps of Engineers to determine if the Old Dalles Levee, constructed as afeature of the Bonneville Lock and Dam project, is still required for project purposes, and, if it is not, to initiate actions to transfer it to the City of The Dalles for expansion of its wastewater treatment facility.Mahoning River, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate activities associated with the dredging of contaminated sediments from the Mahoning River in Ohio under the authority of Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, as amended.Willamette River Basin, Oregon.--The Committee has provided $647,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the program to mark hatchery reared salmon in order to permit a selective fishery to be developed. This will allow wild salmon to be released, while at the same time permitting the recreational fishery to continue.Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.--Within available funds, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to extend the navigation channel on the Allegheny River to provide passenger boat access to the Kittanning, Pennsylvania, Riverfront Park.Aylesworth Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an additional $25,000 for operation and maintenance of recreational facilities at Aylesworth Lake in Pennsylvania.Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an additional $127,000 for the Corps of Engineers to make improvements to recreation facilities at Curwensville Lake in Pennsylvania.Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,170,000 for the Raystown Lake project for the Corps of Engineers to implement recommendations of the 1992 update of the project Master Plan.Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an additional $380,000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair and reopen the Lambs Creek Recreation area.Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The bill includes an additional $900,000 for the Charleston Harbor project to be used for dewatering and diking of the Clouter Creek dredged material disposal site.Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Rincon Canal System, Texas.-- The Committee has provided $675,000 for maintenance dredging of the Rincon Canal in Texas as authorized by Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Neabsco Creek, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging of the Neabsco Creek navigation project.Potomac River, Virginia.--The bill includes $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the planning process and initiate maintenance dredging for the Potomac River at Alexandria and Potomac River below Washington, D.C., navigation projects.Grays Harbor, Washington.--The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to extend the south jetty at the Grays Harbor project to provide a permanent solution to the ongoing erosion problem.Willapa River and Harbor, Washington.--The Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study to find a permanent solution to erosion problems at the Willapa River and Harbor project.Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided an additional $475,000 for the Bluestone Lake project in West Virginia to be used for engineering and design of the preferred alternative for drift and debris removal, and to initiate cleanup downstream of the dam.Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to develop sediment transport models for river systems depositing sediment into Federal navigation projects in the Great Lakes as authorized by Section 516(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.regulatory program Appropriation, 1997................................... $101,000,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 112,000,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 112,000,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... +11,000,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. ................This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine Protection Act of 1972.For fiscal year 1998, the Committee recommends $112,000,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee has recommended the full amount of the budget request with the expectation that the Corps of Engineers will move rapidly to put in place an administrative appeals process for the Regulatory Program.The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to transfer regulatory responsibility for Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties in Indiana from the Detroit District to the Chicago District.Agricultural Drainage Wells, Iowa.--The Committee is aware of the ongoing environmental problems associated with agricultural drainage wells in Iowa. The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to cooperate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture in facilitating the closing of these wells in a timely manner. Furthermore, the Committee recognizes the environmental benefits associated with the closure of agricultural drainage wells and expects these benefits to be taken into account fully for purposes of determining wetlands mitigation when and if the wells are closed and alternative drainage systems are devised. Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Appropriation, 1997................................... $425,000,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 14,000,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 14,000,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... -411,000,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. ................ Note.--The fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes $415,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-18. This activity provides for flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue operations, and repair of flood control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean drinking water where the source has been contaminated and, in drought distressed areas, provision of adequate supplies of water for human and livestock consumption. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action ProgramAppropriation, 1997.................................. .................Budget Estimate, 1998................................ .................Recommended, 1998.................................... $110,000,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997.............................. 110,000,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................ 110,000,000 The Committee recommendation includes statutory language transferring the funding and responsibility for administering the Department of Energy's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) to the Corps of Engineers. The Department of Defense has a similar environmental restoration program for cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The Corps of Engineers manages and executes these cleanup projects at formerly owned or leased defense sites which were contaminated during previous use. The Committee believes that there are significant cost and schedule efficiencies to be gained by having the Corps manage FUSRAP as well.The FUSRAP program was funded at $75,085,000 in fiscal year 1997. The Committee recommendation includes $110,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 to accelerate cleanup of the existing sites. The current estimate for completion is 2016. The Department of Energy's fiscal year 1998 budget request stated that funding of $182,079,000 along with appropriate outyear funding would permit completion of all existing FUSRAP sites by 2002, a significant acceleration from the current completion date of 2016. However, the budget did not include a detailed plan on how this schedule is to be accomplished, and was dependent on reaching agreement with local communities on work to be performed. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to review the baseline cost, scope and schedule for each of the cleanup sites, and determine what actions can be taken to reduce costs and accelerate cleanup activities. The Corps should determine if the 2002 completion date is reasonable and report to the Committee on what steps must be taken to meet this date.In those instances in which a contract or agreement has been reached between the Federal government and a contractor or subcontractor, the terms of that agreement should still be honored. In addition, the Corps of Engineers is expected to immediately pursue cost recovery from the responsible parties at FUSRAP sites either through a negotiated settlement or a court action.The Committee has provided an additional $35,000,000 for FUSRAP activities in fiscal year 1998, for a total of $110,000,000, but does not agree to provide additional funds for any site where a final cleanup agreement is not in effect. Statutory language has been included providing that additional funds are available only for those sites which have a validated baseline for the work to be performed, including a technical plan, schedule, and life-cycle cost estimate for the selected cleanup remedy, and that this baseline has been agreed to by the Federal government, the local community, and the appropriate state and Federal regulators. General Expenses Appropriation, 1997................................... $149,000,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 148,000,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 148,000,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... -1,000,000 Budget Estimate, 1998............................. ................This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.The Committee recommendation for General Expenses is $148,000,000, the same as the budget request.It has come to the Committee's attention that the Corps of Engineers is in the process of restructuring its headquarters' Resource Management organization, including the assumption of functions, including oversight of programmatic goals, mission execution, and customer coordination, that have previously been accomplished by program managers within the Civil Works Directorate of the headquarters. The Committee believes that there is a significant difference between Civil Works program management and the legal resource distribution and performance measurement activities that are a part of Resource Management in the Corps of Engineers. The Committee has enjoyed an excellent relationship with the Corps of Engineers program managers, who provide the Committee with the accurate and responsive program, project, and policy information that the Committee needs to make spending and policy decisions and perform oversight of the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works program. The Committee would not like to see this relationship endangered by a restructuring that would detract from the program managers' ability to achieve program results and may overemphasize ``financial management'' at the expense of ``program management.''TITLE II DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORCentral Utah ProjectCentral Utah Project Completion Account Appropriation, 1997................................... $43,627,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 41,153,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 41,153,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... -2,474,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. ................The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1998 to carry out the provisions of the Act is $41,153,000, the same as the budget request. Bureau of ReclamationWater and Related Resources Appropriation, 1997................................... 685,937,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. 651,552,000Recommended, 1998..................................... 651,931,000Comparison: Appropriation, 1997............................... -34,006,000Budget Estimate, 1998................................. +379,000 Note.--The amount shown as the fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997 under General Investigations, Construction Program, and Operation and Maintenance; and also includes $7,355,000 in emergency appropriations for Operation and Maintenance enacted in Public Law 105-18. The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:New Programmatic Budget Structure.--For fiscal year 1998, the Bureau of Reclamation has proposed a new budget structure which it believes more accurately reflects the work it currently undertakes. The previous budget structure defined the three phases of development of water resources projects: study; construction; and operation and maintenance. The Bureau of Reclamation believes that its original mission of water resources development is now complete and that its core mission is now water resources management. Therefore, it has proposed that funds previously appropriated under the General Investigations, Construction Program, and Operation and Maintenance appropriation accounts be combined in a single account titled ``Water and Related Resources''. All work under the Water and Related Resources account is allocated to one of five programmatic activities: Water and Energy Management and Development; Land Management and Development; Fish and Wildlife Management and Development; Facility Operation; and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation. A description of the work which is performed under each programmatic activity is contained in the Bureau of Reclamation budget justification documents, which are published in Part 3 of the Committee's hearing record for fiscal year 1998.The Committee has agreed to adopt this new budget structure for fiscal year 1998 because in many ways it does a better job of displaying the type of work being performed by the Bureau of Reclamation. In doing so, however, the Committee is not indicating its agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation's assertion that it can create a new mission for itself. The roles and missions of Federal agencies are established through the legislative process and cannot and should not be arbitrarily changed by those agencies. The Committee believes that it is up to the Congress to decide if the Bureau of Reclamation's original mission is complete and, if it is, whether Reclamation should have a new mission.Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--The Committee has provided $54,242,000 for the Central Arizona Project, $7,000,000 less than the budget request.Yuma Area Project, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate work to reduce the threat of flooding to Federal, tribal, and local facilities in Yuma, Arizona, that exists as a result of the deposition of large amounts of sediment that occurred in the lower Colorado River during flooding in 1993.In Situ Copper Mining Research Project, Arizona.--The Committee has provided $1,400,000 to conduct the In Situ Copper Mining Research Project to achieve conclusive demonstration of the technology, including the efficient control and manipulation of transport solutions. These funds will be cost shared by the private sector participant as provided for in the contract. In addition, $300,000 is provided for Bureau of Reclamation oversight of the project and technology transfer activities to other groundwater programs administered by the Bureau to assure that the Federal investment in this technology is maximized.Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete design and initiate construction of the fish screen at the Contra Costa Canal intake at Rock Slough.Central Valley Project, American River Division, California.--Permanent Pumping Facility, Placer County Water Agency.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake design and construction of a permanent pumping facility for the Placer County Water Agency.Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge.--The Committee has provided $700,000 for repairs to the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge, which is commonly known as the ``No Hands Bridge.''Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Reimbursement.-- The Committee has provided $3,900,000 for the Federal share of costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam as authorized in Section 101(a)(1)(D) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.Central Valley Project, San Felipe Division, California.-- The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to work with the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) on implementation of its Basin Management Plan, dated November 1993. The Committee further directs the Bureau of Reclamation, consistent with the provisions of Public Law 102-575, to identify and assist PVWMA obtain additional sources of water through water transfers and/or other opportunities and to identify and address impediments to obtaining such supplies including, but not limited to, cost.Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, California.--Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the Anadromous Fish Screen Program, $3,000,000 more than the budget request. Within funds available to the Anadromous Fish Screen Program, including funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997, the Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to fund the following fish screen projects at the levels indicated below or provide such other amounts as may be necessary to keep construction of each of these high priority fish screen projects on an optimum schedule: Reclamation District 108, $5,000,000; Reclamation District 1004, $2,625,000; and Princeton- Glenn-Codora and Provident Irrigation Districts, $2,500,000.The Committee supports streamlining the process for making funding decisions under the Anadromous Fish Screen Program, and, therefore, directs the Secretary of the Interior to assign full and sole responsibility for the allocation of funding under the program to the Bureau of Reclamation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's role in the program should be limited to providing technical asistance and advice to help the Bureau of Reclamation evaluate the relative merits of various screening options at individual diversion sites.Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, California.--Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.--The Committee has provided $250,000 to continue the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.Colusa Basin Drainage District.--The Committee has provided $750,000 for continued work on the Colusa Basin Drainage District's integrated resource management program.Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for continuing work on a new fish screen and fish recovery facility associated with the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's Hamilton City Pumping Plant, the same as provided in the budget request. Elsewhere in the bill, under the Corps of Engineers, Construction, the Committee has provided $600,000 for the construction of a gradient facility, which is an essential and integral part of the fish screen facility authorized pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The fish screen facility and gradient facility are both necessary to meet fish protection goals at the Hamilton City Pumping Plant. Despite the different funding sources, the Committee directs both agencies to consider both activities as two elements of the same project, and to take every step possible to ensure that the two elements are fully coordinated in every respect.Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, California.--Within the funds provided for the Trinity River Division, $1,500,000 is for continued support of the Co- Management Agreement between the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation.Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, San Luis Unit, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 for operation and maintenance of San Luis Unit joint-use facilities.Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility, California.--The Committee has provided $1,700,000 for completion of the Port Hueneme Water Agency's brackish water reclamation demonstration project. In addition, the Committee has provided $300,000 for a study of the use of brine from the facility to maintain an existing salt marsh.Del Norte County and Crescent City Wastewater Reclamation Study, California.--The Committee has provided $550,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the Del Norte County and Crescent City Wastewater Reclamation study. The Committee believes that in view of the depressed economy of the area, the Bureau should make every effort to minimize any requirement for a local contribution. At a minimum, in-kind services performed by the local sponsor should be considered part of the local share.Sacramento County Reclamation Reuse Study, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to continue the study of utilizing reclaimed water in Sacramento County.Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado.--The Committee wishes to state its continued support for the Animas-La Plata project in Colorado and New Mexico, which is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. Controversy has delayed the construction of the project by the Bureau of Reclamation despite the commitments made in the Settlement Act and a subsequent directive by the Congress that those portions of the project which were approved under the Endangered Species Act should be constructed without delay. In the last year, the Governor of Colorado and the Secretary of the Interior have convened the project supporters and opponents in a process intended to seek resolution of the controversy. The Colorado process calls for a proposal from parties to the settlement as well as one from those who oppose the project as presently contemplated. Proposals are due by July 31, 1997, and meetings will reconvene shortly thereafter. The Committee directs that funds previously appropriated for the project and still available are to be used for the project and advancement of a proposal from the process which meets the original intent of the Settlement to provide a new supply of water to meet the present and future needs of the Ute Tribes and the surrounding region. In the event such a proposal is advanced, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to utilize to the fullest extent the existing environmental compliance documents.Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.--The Committee has provided $667,000 for operation and monitoring of the Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project. The Committee directs that the Bureau of Reclamation not reprogram funds from the Equus Beds project in fiscal year 1998.Fort Peck Indian Reservation Water System Investigation, Montana.--The Committee has provided $240,000 to continue pre- authorization activities for a municipal and industrial water supply system for the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.Fort Peck Rural Water Supply System, Montana.--The bill includes $293,000 for preconstruction activities, such as NEPA compliance, associated with the Fort Peck Rural Water Supply System project.Walker River Basin, Nevada.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to work with local interests to identify the most effective water conservation practices applicable to the Walker River Basin, and to quantify the contribution that conservation can make to solving the water resources problems in Walker Lake and the basin as a whole.Northwest Wastewater Reuse Project, Texas.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for completion of the Northwest Wastewater Reuse project in Texas.Rio Grande Conveyance Canal/Pipeline, Texas.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for NEPA compliance and design activities associated with the Rio Grande Conveyance/Pipeline project.Yakima Project, Washington.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project.Operation and Maintenance Costs, Deficits, and Budget Development/Priorities.--The Committee is concerned about reports of exceptionally large increases in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs at a number of Bureau of Reclamation projects and reports that Bureau of Reclamation overhead is responsible, in some cases, for more than half of such cost increases. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a survey of O&M costs associated with each of its projects and report back to the Committee on: the O&M costs for each of its projects; the percent change, on an annual basis, in O&M costs for each project; the amount and percentage of O&M costs attributable to overhead for each project; the charges to beneficiaries for municipal and industrial, irrigation, power, fish and wildlife, recreation, and other purposes; and a brief explanation of the justification for any overhead rate in excess of 20 percent of total O&M costs for any project. The above information should be provided for fiscal years 1993- 1997. The cost of this survey shall be a non-reimbursable expense that is the sole responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation. The results of the survey shall be provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate, the House Committee on Resources, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.Link---Specific---Department of Energy---GBSDCanceling the GBSD forces Minuteman maintenance---that costs billionsPatty-Jane Geller 21, policy analyst specializing in nuclear deterrence and missile defense at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, “The debate on the ICBM fleet just got a whole lot easier,” Defense News, 5/19/21, debate over whether to stick with the half-century-old Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile or replace it with the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program just got a whole lot easier. On May 12, Gen. Timothy Ray, commander of U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, confirmed that extending the Minuteman III through 2075 would actually cost $38 billion more than developing the GBSD.With this new information, how can anyone still argue for keeping a missile mired in 1960s-era technology over building a new one that’s 28 percent cheaper?With a price tag of about $95 billion, the GBSD program has long been criticized as too costly. The critics argue that money would be better spent on other priorities, like combating climate change. Meanwhile, they say, the Minuteman III can ensure the nation’s security for a while longer.But sustaining missiles built before there was even an internet is no cheap task. Adm. Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, recently testified that some parts of the Minuteman III system are so old that contractors no longer know how to make them. And trying to retrofit cyber-secure software into a system built before cyber existed will certainly be expensive.The Air Force initially estimated that extending the Minuteman III would cost only $1.1 billion more than GBSD. But that cost difference has now skyrocketed to $38 billion because the earlier estimate assumed that programs to update key missile parts — like the propulsion system, missile guidance set and rocket engines — would get underway in 2015 or 2016. Since the Air Force selected GBSD as the better option for the nation, those decision points have long passed.Now, switching course and starting those programs this much closer to the Minuteman III’s planned retirement at the end of the decade would cost billions more. That’s what Gen. Ray meant when he said: “We’re out of time” with respect to extending the Minuteman III.Link---Specific---Department of Energy---GBSD---AT: Cuts MinutemanThat’s not normal meansPatty-Jane Geller 21, policy analyst specializing in nuclear deterrence and missile defense at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, “The debate on the ICBM fleet just got a whole lot easier,” Defense News, 5/19/21, , extending Minuteman III and reducing the fleet would imply unilateral force reductions. Senior officials have repeatedly advised against unilateral reductions because doing so would remove an incentive for our adversaries to negotiate arms control. As Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., aptly questioned: “Why would our competitors agree to new rounds of arms reductions if they knew the U.S. was cutting its forces anyway, regardless of whether they agreed to do the same?”Link---Specific---DesalinationUSBR spends money on desal technology sponsorship. USBR 18, United States Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation Funding,” 2018, and Development – Desalination and Water Purification and Science and Technology ProgramsFunds in 2018 will continue to support sponsorship of technology prize competitions as a means to spur innovation by enlisting a national solver community to help find breakthroughs or overcome technical obstacles or complexities. The program also develops new solutions and technologies to meet Reclamation’s mission-related needs, which provides for innovative management, development, and protection of water and related resources. Funds also support desalination research, development, and demonstrations for the purpose of converting unusable waters into useable water supplies. The program supports competitive, merit-based research, development, and demonstration efforts on a cost-shared basis.Desal rollout tanks US-Mexico cooperation---that hits every aspect of USBR operations. Jennifer Pitt 20, Colorado River Program Director, “New Senate Bill Threatens U.S.—Mexico Cooperation, Environment, and Birds of Lower Colorado River,” Audubon, 7/31/20, legislation proposed by Senator Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) would destroy the Ciénega de Santa Clara, the largest remaining wetland in the Colorado River Delta, essential for birds there and many birds that travel to the United States during migration. This is because the Water-Energy Technology Demonstration and Deployment Act instructs the federal government to operate the Yuma Desalting Plant through a new partnership between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Energy. While the broader purpose of the legislation—to secure federal investment in energy and water—is laudable, the mandate to operate the long-defunct Yuma Desalting Plant is a mistake. It’s bad for birds, and for our existing agreements with Mexico.The Ciénega de Santa Clara is a 40,000-acre wetland that survives on some of the last drops of Colorado River water allowed to flow to nature. The Colorado River Delta historically was North America’s largest and most productive desert ecosystem, but more than a century of water development in the western United States and northwestern Mexico eliminated nearly all of the delta’s ecosystems: some 1.5 million acres of meandering rivers, riverside forests, and wetlands.Mexico manages the Ciénega de Santa Clara as a federal natural area with the highest protections of its Biosphere Reserve program, and it is listed in the International Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Notably, the Ciénega is home to 70 percent of the world’s remaining population of the Yuma Ridgway’s Rail, listed as an endangered species in the United States. Indeed these birds travel back and forth between the two countries.The Colorado River is so completely developed that it no longer flows down its final 100 miles. The water supply for the Ciénega de Santa Clara originates as Colorado River water that, after irrigating farms in Southern Arizona, flows as brackish water too salty for farming and then drains into a canal that has fed the Ciénega for nearly 50 years. Senator McSally’s legislation would eliminate this water supply, and destroy the Ciénega.In 2019, Arizona, as well as the six other Colorado River basin states and Reclamation, adopted the Drought Contingency Plans to avoid the risk of severe water supply crises. In those plans, Reclamation committed to work towards the goal of conserving 100,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Reclamation has already begun work on several projects to fulfill this commitment without needing to operate the Yuma Desalting Plant.Notably, Arizona recently collaborated with Mexico to study the feasibility of a binational ocean desalination facility on the Upper Gulf of California that could potentially supply the Lower Colorado River Basin, including Arizona, with twice the volume of water that could be produced at the Yuma Desalting Plant (200,000 acre-feet). Senator McSally’s proposal, which Mexico does not support, would jeopardize any prospect for future cooperation on a binational desalination project, and furthermore could jeopardize Mexico’s existing commitments to share in Colorado River shortages. Without Mexico as a partner in stabilizing Lake Mead, Arizona’s water shortage risk grows even larger than it is today.While Audubon supports efforts to stabilize water supplies in the Colorado River Basin, the consequences of restarting the Yuma Desalting Plan would be catastrophic.Link---Specific---Invasive SpeciesInvasive species management is part of the USBR portfolio---it’s hugely expensiveUSBR 18, United States Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation Funding,” 2018, Mussels – The 2018 budget will support Reclamation mussels’ activities framework established in the Quagga-Zebra Mussels Action Plan for Western U.S. Waters. The Plan was submitted to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force by the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species to which Reclamation is an active participant. Reclamation is working in close cooperation with the Western Governors Association, States, and Tribes to keep invasive mussels from infecting the Columbia River Basin in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah. The Columbia Basin is the last major uninfected watershed in the United States. Regional estimates are that a full-blown infestation in the region would cost its citizens $500 million annually in lost economic production, higher electric rates, and risk more endangered species complications. Reclamation is developing a database of environmental conditions at its reservoirs. This database can support identification of areas susceptible to mussel infestation. Reclamation is developing an infestation risk model, the output of which will help identify where habitat conditions are most suitable for infestation. This model will prioritize where resources should be deployed for increased early detection and monitoring activities as well as prevention and outreach and education. Additionally, Reclamation continues to develop improved methods for monitoring, detection, and control of invasive mussels that continue to spread in the West, infesting Reclamation dams, power plants, and facilities of other water providers. The 2018 Reclamation budget includes $7.7 million for prevention, early detection and monitoring, containment and control at existing facilities, outreach and education, and research focused on these issues.Link---Specific---NativesTribal water infrastructure is under USBR jurisdiction---it’s extremely expensiveUSBR 18, United States Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation Funding,” 2018, Nations – Within Water and Related Resources the budget proposes a total of $215.0 million in funding to support Native American programs. As part of this total, $98.6 million is requested for the Indian water rights settlements authorized under several legislative statutes, including the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, and the newly enacted Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016. This includes funding of $67.8 million for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, $12.8 million for the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement, $8.0 million for the Aamodt Litigation Settlement, and $10.0 million for the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement. The funding for the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement represents Reclamation’s first contribution to meet its required contribution of $246.5 million by January 2025.In addition to requesting funding consistent with current activity, these settlements will draw on their available permanent funding to continue project activities. In addition, $28.8 million is requested to support tribal settlements within a number of projects, including $7.1 million for the Nez Perce Settlement within the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, $1.6 million for the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Settlement Act, $16.2 million for the Ak Chin Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, and $3.9 million for Animas La Plata. In 2018, these funds are requested within Water and Related Resources.Congress has specifically authorized Reclamation to undertake the design and construction of six projects to deliver potable water supplies to specific rural communities and Tribes located primarily in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In addition to funding for rural water project construction, the budget funds the operation and maintenance of tribal features of the Mni Wiconi project and the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Garrison Diversion Unit. The Rural Water projects with planned ongoing construction activities are: the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System; the Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Rural Water System; the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System; the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Garrison Diversion Unit; and the Rocky Boy’s and North Central Montana Rural Water System.Other activities that benefit Tribes include $13.5 million for required tribal operation and maintenance for the Mni Wiconi Project and $10.4 million for the Native American Affairs program to improve capacity to work with and support Tribes in the resolution of their water rights claims and to develop sustainable water sharing agreements and management activities. This funding supports technical assistance to Tribes and tribal organizations to increase opportunities for Tribes to develop, manage, and protect their water and related resources. The funding will also strengthen Department-wide capabilities to achieve an integrated and systematic approach to Indian water rights negotiations to consider the full range of economic, legal, and technical attributes of proposed settlements.Link---Specific---SecurityInfrastructure security is part of the USBR portfolio---it trades offUSBR 18, United States Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation Funding,” 2018, SecurityFunds are provided to continue Reclamation’s ongoing site security efforts including physical security upgrades at high risk critical assets, law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel security, information security, security risk assessments, security related studies, guards, and patrol of facilities.Link---Specific---AT: Non-Federal FacilitiesThe BoR’s prioritization process is fragile specifically for non-federally partnered management facilities---ad-hoc policies will make both funding gaps and priority fights inevitable. CRS 11 - The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members?, “The Bureau of Reclamation’s Aging Infrastructure”, CRS, 3-30-2011, available online @ is a process within Reclamation for identifying and prioritizing rehabilitation funding needs of the water resources infrastructure that the agency has constructed since it was created in 1902. However, as a result of increasing needs, constrained budgets, and the unique nature of the ownership arrangements for Reclamation projects, many view the current process as inadequate. Outside of the Dam Safety Program, aging infrastructure that is owned and maintained by Reclamation (i.e., reserved works) is generally selected for expenditure either by internal criteria determined on the regional level, or else through directed spending by Congress that provides support to individual projects. For infrastructure that is owned by the federal government but maintained by nonfederal interests (i.e., transferred works), there is no formal process to identify and assist in paying for major upgrades. Other agencies, including the Corps (with regard to levees) and the NRCS (with regard to small dams) face similar problems with the upkeep of infrastructure that was built by the federal government but is now maintained by nonfederal interests.As Reclamation’s maintenance needs increase, the prioritization process for aging infrastructure may receive increasing attention. An overarching question for Congress is whether the efforts of Reclamation and other agencies to identify and prioritize aging infrastructure are adequate. As previously noted, current practices within the Corps, Reclamation, and NRCS have generally provided limited funding for aging water resource projects that are owned and operated by the federal government, and have provided limited or no funding for upgrades to projects that are operated by nonfederal partners.Due to potential needs for costly repairs and upgrades on Reclamation facilities, the question of who should pay and how much, at both transferred and reserved works, will likely be raised repeatedly in the coming years. The question may be of particular concern for rehabilitation projects at transferred facilities, which the Administration has generally refused to support in the past, and which have on occasion experienced major failures and subsequently received attention from Congress.55Some claim that it is in the nation’s best interests for the federal government to provide increased support for all facilities that are federally owned (regardless of the operator) because there are major societal costs to allowing these facilities to deteriorate. Additionally, these interests argue that the difficulty that private entities have financing these upgrades necessitates aid by the federal government. On the other side of this issue, some (including the current Administration) note that allowing nonfederal entities to renege on their contractual responsibilities sets a troubling precedent, and that a major influx of federal funding is not practical in light of constrained budgets. Additionally, due to the inherently decentralized and at times sporadic documentation of needs to date, the actual extent of current needs is not well defined. Although numerous entities supported recently passed provisions that extended the repayment period for extraordinary maintenance expenses at both reserved and transferred works, to date few beneficiaries have taken advantage of these terms. This may call into question the urgency of some calls for aid from the federal government.ImpactTurns CaseTurns BiodDam collapse devastates biodiversityRosemary A. Burk & Jan Kallberg 16, Burk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office; Kallberg, Army Cyber Institute, “Cyber Defense as a Part of Hazard Mitigation: Comparing High Hazard Potential Dam Safety Programs in the United States and Sweden,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, vol. 13, no. 1, 01/01/2016, (Crossref), doi:10.1515/jhsem-2015-0047The effects of a successful cyberattack could release massive amounts of water in a short timeframe that increases the stress and likelihood for failure for dams further downstream. For example, a series of dam failures in a large watershed could result in high loss of human lives, significant property damage, widespread environmental impacts and disruption to societal infrastructure. Hydroelectric dams and reservoirs are controlled using different computer networks, either cable or wireless, and the control networks connect to the Internet. “A breach in the cyberdefenses of an electric utility company could lead all the way down to the logic controllers that instruct the electric machinery to open the floodgates” (Kallberg and Burk 2014).Commonly, hydroelectric dams and reservoirs are built in a series along the river’s length to maximize the capacity for electricity generation and take advantage of power generated by sharp declines in elevation. A cyberattack on one or more dams in the upper watershed could release water that would rapidly increase pressure on downstream dams. With rapidly diminishing storage capacity, downstream dams would be vulnerable to breach. Eventually, the attack could have a cascading effect, literally and figuratively, through the river system and result in a catastrophic flood.The traditional cybersecurity approach is to focus on the loss of function and disruption in electricity generation – overlooking the potential environmental effect of an inland tsunami (Kallberg and Burk 2014). This is especially troublesome where the population and the industries are dense along a river, such as in Pennsylvania, Germany, and other areas with cities built around historic mills. If the cyberattack occurred during a heavy rain when the dams were already stressed, any rapid increase in water level could trigger successive dam collapses. This could lead to high casualties and a critical loss of hydroelectric capacity. In nations seeking to maximize their hydropower capacity and deliver electricity to other countries via elaborate international electricity grids. Ensuring dam safety for these countries, such as in Sweden, becomes an issue of domestic and international importance.Dam flooding specifically kills millions AND targets uniquely vital ecosystems---extinctionDr. Michael E. Webber 16, serves as the Chief Science and Technology Officer at ENGIE, a global energy & infrastructure services company, Josey Centennial Professor in Energy Resources at the University of Texas at Austin, “Thirst for Power: Energy, Water and Human Survival,” Yale University Press, 2016WATER IS IMPORTANT TO LIFE, ecosystems, and most of the processes we care about. When NASA’s deep space probes look for life, they look for water. Water helps give DNA its shape, which means water gives life its shape. 1 It is also a critical harbinger of environmental and ecosystem health. It has been said that the modern environmental movement in the United States launched in 1969 because of three separate, but important, water events: an oil spill, a burning river, and a trip to the moon. In January and February 1969, a massive spill from offshore production in the Santa Barbara Channel released over eighty thousand barrels of crude oil that lined the nearby beaches of Southern California and killed thousands of birds. Decades later, there is still oil and tar stuck in the sands, and a pipeline leak in May 2015 that released over two thousand barrels of oil along the Santa Barbara coast was a stark reminder that the risks to water have not gone away completely.A few months after the 1969 spill, on June 22, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, caught on fire because of its rampant pollution, capturing the attention of Time magazine. 2 Although water quality is not a subject most would consider themselves experts on, people do understand that water should not burn.Nearly a month later, on July 20, the first manned mission successfully landed on the moon. Looking back at the earth from space revealed the globe to be more beautifully blue than people had ever expected. The space-borne view of the oceans served as a reminder that despite our planet’s name, its surface is primarily covered by water.Despite its complex role in life and the ecosystem, water’s chemical makeup is quite simple: H2O. Its chemical name has many variations, including dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen hydroxide, hydric acid, hydroxic acid, hydroxyl acid, hydroxilic acid, and μ-oxido dihydrogen. Its structure is simple, symmetric, and nonlinear.Water has a strong dipole moment, which makes it a polar molecule. In layman’s terms, that means the charge is unequally distributed such that it “points” in a particular direction. While that concept might not have seemed significant during high school chemistry when we usually hear about it for the first time, polarity has several important consequences. For example, the polarity causes airborne water vapor to absorb a lot of infrared radiation, making it the atmosphere’s most important naturally occurring greenhouse gas. In fact, water’s contribution to atmospheric warming is why we have such a comfortable climate in the first place. Without so much water vapor and pre-industrial carbon dioxide in the air, and without its propensity to absorb radiation, our atmosphere would be about thirty-five degrees Celsius cooler; water vapor is responsible for approximately twenty of those degrees. 3Water’s polarity also makes it a valuable universal solvent. It can dissolve all sorts of materials, including salts, sugars, and acids. And that’s why we use it for cleaning. Water can also exist in three phases in nature simultaneously: solid icebergs floating on a liquid ocean below a sky with clouds of water vapor. Its strong dipole moment also makes water “sticky,” which means it adheres to other surfaces as well as other water molecules. The net effect of this stickiness is that water has high surface tension, a feature that offers many benefits to living things that need to circulate water through their systems.Water also has a relatively high heat capacity and heat of vaporization. These attributes mean that water can carry a lot of heat before it boils. The converse is also true: it takes a lot of energy to boil water, as anyone who has ever had to boil water on a campfire with sticks they collected themselves can attest. Because of its heat capacity, water makes an excellent coolant for power plants. For example, water’s heat capacity is about four times greater than air, which means it would take four times as much air movement to accomplish the same level of cooling as water. If you burned your hand, you would probably prefer to cool it off with running water, rather than simply putting your hand in front of a fan.One often overlooked unique feature that is very important is that water’s maximum density is at four degrees Celsius. While the significance isn’t obvious, it means that ice floats on water, a characteristic not shared by many other molecules. While floating ice is such an intuitive and obvious part of our observational experience, such behavior is unique. And critical. If ice did not float, but rather sank as most other solids would do, then lakes would fill up with ice.Instead, the ice forms at the top layer, hovering above a large body of liquid teeming with life. If the density of ice were higher than liquid water, then as the ice was formed it would sink to the bottom of the water body. Each subsequent layer of ice formation would do the same thing, stacking up at the bottom of the water body until the entire lake was one giant ice block. As can be imagined, such a phenomenon would squeeze out the living creatures, depriving them of a chance to thrive. But, because of water’s lower density, the cycle of freezing and thawing can proceed while life continues below, a convenient outcome.The global hydrologic cycle is large, powerful, and continuous. It can change its intensity over time, but the cycle does not stop. And, different parts of the cycle are all interconnected. As described by the U.S. Geological Survey, “Earth’s water is always in movement, and the natural water cycle, also known as the hydrologic cycle, describes the continuous movement of water on, above, and below the surface of the Earth. Water is always changing states between liquid, vapor, and ice, with these processes happening in the blink of an eye and over millions of years.”4 The hydrologic cycle includes major fluxes and volumes of water. The largest movements of water are evaporation and precipitation over the ocean. There is also significant transport of water vapor in the atmosphere, rainfall and snowfall over land, and other fluxes in the form of runoff, stream flow, and evapotranspiration, which is the evaporation of water through photosynthetic activity from the growth of plants. It’s clear that we have plenty of water: it is just that the water is in the wrong form (saltwater), place (on top of mountains, for example), or the wrong time of year. The image of the hydrologic cycle is essentially a depiction of water abundance, as long as we have energy to convert the water to our purposes. [[IMAGE OMITTED]] The hydrologic cycle is global and complicated, being composed of large storage systems and fluxes. Easily accessible surface freshwater makes up a small fraction of the world’s water supply.The key forcing function that is the pump driving this cycle is the incoming solar energy from the sun. Just over half of the earth’s incoming solar radiation is consumed in the process of evaporating water. 5 Evaporation of water over the ocean is the primary driver of the hydrologic cycle: once that stops, the whole cycle will come crashing to a halt. Essentially the sun does a lot of heavy lifting for us, raising water to a high altitude in the atmosphere, after which gravity brings it back down as snow and rain. If we could capture the entire gravitational potential of that elevated water, it would give us energy at a rate of 13 terawatts, which is nearly an order of magnitude higher than the rate at which the entire globe consumes electricity. As it rolls back down to the oceans, we harness it for power, irrigation, drinking, and many other purposes. Then the whole cycle starts again.In other words, atmospheric water, despite constituting less than onethousandth of a percent of the world’s total water volume, is a key driver of the water cycle. 6 The good news is that there is a lot of water: the globe is awash in water. There is approximately eight times more water stored in the atmosphere than all of the world’s rivers combined. There is 150 times more water in glaciers and snow than all of our lakes combined. There is plenty of water. [[IMAGE OMITTED]]The hydro-illogical cycle shows the human reaction to the hydrologic cycle. Drought initially leads to water awareness, while prolonged drought raises concerns and ultimately panic, until rain causes people to be apathetic again.The hydro-illogical cycle shows the human reaction to the hydrologic cycle. Drought initially leads to water awareness, while prolonged drought raises concerns and ultimately panic, until rain causes people to be apathetic again.The old seaman’s ditty “water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink,” from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1798, captures the essence of inconvenience of being surrounded by seawater that is unsuitable for consumption. And, it is no surprise that the word “tantalize” has its roots in a water-based legend. The Greek gods punish Tantalus, a son of Zeus, by giving him great thirst and forcing him to stand in a pool of water that always recedes as he leans down to take a drink. Such a myth feels like a fitting parable for humankind’s relationship with abundant water resources that seem to be forever just beyond our reach. In fact, it is this inconvenience that drives much of the energy investments for water: we spend significant sums of energy moving, treating, or storing water so that it is available in the form, location, and time we want it. While those energy investments overcome the limits of water’s tantalizingly distant location, billions of people still remain without clean, accessible water.While the hydrologic cycle is governed by the laws of physics, humankind’s response is something entirely different. Tom Mason, the former general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, a major water and power provider in central Texas, introduced me to a new concept that sarcastic (and exasperated) water managers bill as the hydro-illogical cycle. This term came to life from planners who have decades of experience dealing with different stakeholders who need water. The hydroillogical cycle is the series of steps that humans take as water goes through its various phases of availability. Just after rain, we develop apathy, after which drought catches our attention, leading to awareness campaigns, broad concern, then panic. When the rain comes again, we smile and start the cycle all over again. It is as if our entire public policy response to water challenges is to pray for rain and hope for the best. While that approach has worked many times in the past, sometimes it is not enough.A critical underlying aspect to water science, which would be valuable to those frustrated planners managing the hydro-illogical cycle, is the importance of accurate water bookkeeping. To properly understand the state of water availability and the extent (if any) of the water crisis, it is critically important to track the flows, uses, and volumes of water in storage in different locations, forms, and times of year. Unfortunately, despite many relevant advances in the last century for hydrogeology, these are areas where scientists lag behind. The world’s dataset on water is woefully incomplete, which makes it more difficult to make thoughtful water planning decisions. By contrast, energy data are relatively plentiful and available.Keeping track of water is done through a scientific bookkeeping method known as the Reynolds Transport Theorem, which is used to track the flows, fluxes, and storage of water in a physical system. It’s similar to the way we do our financial bookkeeping: the amount of money we have in the bank tomorrow is the sum of what we had in the bank yesterday, plus whatever we deposited today, minus whatever we withdrew. Whether we get rich depends on how much we start with and whether we withdraw more than we deposit.The same is true with water: the key aspect is the rate at which water is withdrawn or consumed, and whether it exceeds the rate at which water is added to the system from rainfall or aquifer recharge. If we take water out of an aquifer faster than water comes back in, then our water bank account will go dry. If we withdraw water at a slower rate than our deposits, then the water bank account will fill up.Those who have watched the children’s animated movie Rango will recognize this concept. In that movie, the main character is a lizard voiced by Johnny Depp who finds himself stuck in a desert town. That town is going through a water crisis amidst a backdrop of political corruption, not unlike the storyline of Chinatown, the 1970s movie about water in Los Angeles that starred Jack Nicholson. In Rango, the town’s bank account is literally a large jug of water. As the town’s members had been withdrawing from the bank faster than the rate of deposits, the bank account—their store of water—was going dry. This movie is an illustration of a worldwide phenomenon as societies on every continent are withdrawing water faster than they are depositing, which means their accounts will eventually run out.Unfortunately, in contrast with bank accounts—where we get a nicely printed record of our deposits, withdrawals, and balances—for the water world, we are operating in an information vacuum. While withdrawals might be known in some instances—for example by large industrial, municipal, or agricultural users who monitor their pumping—generally we do not know the status of our water resources or water use. Even in the United States, where governmental record keepers have a plethora of data on all sorts of matters, our data on water are not sufficiently updated, comprehensive, or specific to location and time.Precipitation is one of the methods for water additions, and so important that governments monitor it closely. It can also be easily tracked, but how much of that rainfall recharges the underlying aquifers is hard to measure or estimate. Sometimes we do not know our water balances until the well runs dry. Such a situation is akin to writing checks for the things you need, such as the mortgage, groceries, and gasoline, without ever knowing for sure how much money you had originally in the bank, how much money remains, or how much money you are earning. Basically, the status of your account would be unknown up until you run out of money and the checks start bouncing. That is a reasonable approximation for our water situation today. We are operating blind while writing a bunch of checks that are likely to go bad someday.Installing stream gauges to track flows in rivers, well monitors to estimate the water tables, and pump meters to keep track of withdrawals across watersheds would be helpful. This approach is implemented in some richer parts of the world. But we still do not know how much water is in the ground. However, new technologies such as GRACE give us new eyes in the sky that can see through the ground to tell us a little more about our bank account of groundwater.The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) consists of twin satellites that were launched in 2002.7 The way GRACE works is that the two satellites follow each other in their orbit around the poles of the earth. As they orbit, differences in the earth’s mass cause slight differences in the gravity field, which causes the satellites to speed up or slow down in their orbit. While orbiting, the satellites send a microwave beam back and forth and they measure how long it takes the beam to travel between them roundtrip. Doing so lets them measure their distance from each other, which reveals tiny differences in their relative acceleration. Since acceleration depends on the earth’s mass directly below, the oscillating distance between the satellites provides a highly detailed map of the earth’s gravity field. As they map the earth’s gravity over the years, the satellites paint a detailed view of how the earth’s mass changes with space and time.The main point here is that the earth’s mass is not uniform the way people might think. For example, some newer mountain ranges (the Andes and Himalayas come to mind) have more mass than their low-lying neighbors. Because water is so heavy, the mass of different regions—such as Brazil—will vary based on whether it is the wet season or the dry season. That means GRACE can be used to measure changes in the mass of water from space. Amazingly enough, satellites hundreds of miles high in the sky can see through the ground to tell us whether our aquifers are filling or going dry with greater precision than our farmers working on the surface.Unfortunately, the early results have been alarming: the aquifers in India are emptier and depleting faster than scientists thought, and the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than anticipated.8 GRACE revealed that in northern India, the water table dropped about one foot each year between 2002 and 2008 as farmers overpumped the aquifer to irrigate their crops. It is nice to have that information for the first time about the amount of water in our bank account. Whether that information will cause us to be more frugal with water remains to be seen.Just as there are many different forms of energy, there are also different forms or types of water. These types differentiate the water’s composition, where it came from, and the different labels we assign them.One of the most important distinctions has to do with the salinity or the level of total dissolved solids, or TDS (made up of salts and minerals), in water. Potable water has less than 1,000 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids. 9 “Brackish water” is too salty to drink (with a TDS of 1,500–10,000 milligrams/liter). Above that is “saline water” (10,000– 100,000 milligrams/liter), which includes seawater. The wastewater that is produced out of the ground from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) of shale formations can have a TDS as high as 400,000 milligrams per liter, which is one of the reasons fracking is so contentious. 10In Spanish, freshwater is called sweetwater (de agua dulce), as its flavor is much sweeter than that of saltwater. If water has a salt content that is too high, then drinking it will actually do physiological damage by poisoning the body’s cells. At the same time, perfectly pure water with no dissolved solids (such as distilled water) can also cause damage by leaching salts and minerals back out of the body’s cells. This is an unfortunate consequence, especially since there are vendors who sell distilled water as a “healthy alternative” to conventional water. Those salts and minerals also provide taste. While a relatively high level of salts tastes bad, it turns out we do have a preference for a small dose of salts that provide flavor. In fact, many bottled water purveyors actually add a prescribed mixture of salts to achieve a particular taste. 11 [[IMAGE OMITTED]]Of the world’s water, only about 2.5 percent is fresh. Of that, only a small fraction is easily accessible surface water in rivers and lakes. [Peter H. Gleick, editor, Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)]Rivers have a range of salinity, depending on where their water comes from, the composition of the riverbed, pollution to which they are exposed, and so forth. Generally speaking, rivers are potable, though there are some very polluted rivers that cannot be drunk because their level of salts, toxics, and contaminants exceed acceptable thresholds.For human consumption and agricultural production, freshwater is necessary. However, there are a few crops that grow with brackish water, and there are sea plants such as seaweed, kelp, and algae that grow in saline water. While the world is awash in brackish and saline water, the relative abundance of freshwater is really what matters for human prosperity and quality of life. Unfortunately, freshwater is a small fraction of the total: about 97.5 percent of the world’s water is saline or brackish (1.365 billion cubic kilometers), and only 2.5 percent (35 million cubic kilometers) is freshwater. 12 Of the world’s freshwater, much of it is locked up in ice or other locations that are hard to access.In addition to the salinity of water, it is also useful to track the location and source of liquid water. The first distinction is between surface water and groundwater. Surface water sits on top of the ground in rivers and lakes (usually freshwater) or in the oceans (saltwater), ultimately covering 70 percent of the earth’s surface. Groundwater is water in the ground (as opposed to on the ground) and can be fresh or saline. An aquifer is a geological zone with a large volume of water that is naturally stored in porous rock such as sandstone.Of the world’s freshwater, more than two-thirds is in glaciers and permanent snow cover, about 30 percent is in groundwater (including soil moisture, swamp water, permafrost, and aquifers), and only a small fraction of freshwater is in lakes and river storage. 13 That means there is a hundred times more water in the ground than in all the world’s rivers and lakes. In other words, very little of the world’s water is easily accessible surface freshwater.Water in the soil above the water table is called the unsaturated zone, and that section has relatively less water by volume. So if you plan to dig a well, you have to dig it deep enough so that it reaches the saturated zone, where water is more abundant. And, as groundwater sources become depleted, the water table drops. The saturated zone gets lower, and wells have to be dug deeper. The deeper you have to dig, the more energy you have to spend to pump the water to the surface.While for planning and legal purposes, surface water and groundwater are sometimes treated as separate and unique, they are in fact connected. Surface water often trickles down into the ground, recharging aquifers. And, there are places where the groundwater comes out naturally or under its own force. Those are called springs if the outlet is natural and flowing artesian wells if the outlet was manmade. Artesian wells are dug, drilled, or cut deep into the ground at a section of the water table that is under enough pressure such that the water comes to the surface on its own. Prolific wells can produce more than three hundred gallons per minute. Such wells conveniently allow us to avoid the nuisance of having to lower a bucket or use a hand pump to raise the water. Sometimes the pressure is so high that the water shoots out of the well several feet. Such an arrangement—with the earth doing the pumping for us—is handy. And it’s also safe, as it removes the risk of careless people or unattended children falling down a conventional open well as in Tikki Tikki Tembo, the children’s story set in ancient China. It’s not just a children’s story, either. Toddler Jessica McClure fell down a well in her aunt’s backyard in 1987, creating an international media circus as rescuers worked around the clock for more than fifty hours on live broadcast television to free her. They were successful, and she is alive and well today.In addition to groundwater versus surface water, it is also useful to distinguish between renewable and nonrenewable water. The hydrologic cycle describes the fluxes of water around the globe. Water evaporation is followed by precipitation is followed by aquifer recharge or runoff, then evaporation again. Consequently, water is considered renewable in that it renews itself: it will rain again someday.However, the rate of renewal is important to consider. For aquifers, water is added to the porous rock through a process called recharge. Aquifers all have a different rate of recharge. Pumping water out of wells faster than the rate of recharge will eventually deplete the aquifer— causing your well and your neighbors’ wells to run dry—despite the fact that water is renewable.Some aquifers recharge and discharge very quickly. By contrast, portions of the Ogallala Aquifer, which spans several states, have what some people bill as fossil water: the water is millions of years old in some places and has a very slow recharge rate. This recharge is so slow, in fact, the water stored in the aquifer is essentially nonrenewable: it is similar to fossil fuels, which are stored energy underground.Just as energy has different colors—green energy and brown coal come to mind—we can also think about water’s different colors. In James McBride’s autobiography, he recounts his story as one of twelve children of a black father and a white mother in an era where interracial couples and mixed-race children were considered outcasts. 14 His tale includes the passage to adulthood along with struggles for race identity, the pursuit of success, and overcoming (or redefining) racist stereotypes. In the story’s defining moment, James asks his mother if she’s white. She replies that she is “light-skinned.” He asks her whether God is black or white, and she answers, “God is the color of water.” In other words, since water has no color, God is colorless. God is neither black nor white.While I suspect it is true that God does not have a skin color, and water is nominally colorless, it is also standard to use colors for describing different types of water, and from a variety of perspectives. There is of course the classic whitewater, meaning quickly flowing water in rivers, in which the stirring makes it appear white. But in addition, there are also different color schemes for water footprinting, and for use in buildings, natural environments, and national security.The Water Footprint Network provides the definitions to differentiate blue, green, and graywater. 15 Blue water includes consumption from fresh surface and groundwater (lakes, rivers, aquifers) from a water footprinting perspective. Green water is precipitation on land that does not run off or recharge the aquifer (stays in the soil), but might eventually be evaporated or evapotranspired during growth of a crop. Graywater is water that becomes polluted during production or is needed to dilute pollutants.In the built environment graywater is the polluted wastewater that is generated as residue from washing and looks cloudy or gray from the soaps and other organic matter. It includes the water from sinks, laundry washers, showers, and tubs. It can also include the stormwater harvested, for example, by collecting runoff from the roof during rainstorms through gutters that lead to rain barrels. But it does not include sewage from toilets. Blackwater is wastewater that contains sewage (fecal matter and urine) and organic matter from dishwater drains. It is stored in a septic tank or transported away to a treatment facility where pathogens are removed.Some advanced eco-sensitive homes separate the graywater and blackwater, using the former on-site for irrigation and sending the latter to a facility for treatment. While that does reduce the need for treated freshwater, this approach can be problematic for sewage collection systems if the flows get reduced so much that they do not work properly. Purple water is treated wastewater effluent that does not meet potability standards, but is suitable for applications such as irrigation and washing cars. Many municipalities paint the pipes purple to provide a visual clue that the effluent is not potable.Taking the analogy of water and financial bookkeeping a little further, rainfall is similar to our income: like the money added to the bank from our salaries, rainfall is the water that is added to the local system. The difference is that rainfall is free, given to us by a combination of natural factors, namely the hydrologic cycle, which elevates water to the atmosphere to the benefit of all of us, laboring as a hard-working water pump that works for nothing and without complaint. Rainfall makes water renewable—it brings the water back to us after we have consumed it and sent it down the rivers to the ocean. Rain recharges our rivers, lakes, and aquifers. Because it is one of the easiest parts of the water cycle to see and measure and because rain is like our income for the water bank account, it is closely tracked by companies, citizens, and governments.Because rainfall is so central to the health of the U.S. agricultural sector, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is one of the key agencies that supports this effort. Rainfall varies from less than 4 to greater than 160 inches per year for the contiguous United States. Texas is a microcosm of the national range, varying from less than 14 inches in the arid west near El Paso and exceeding 54 inches annually in the piney woods and swamplands near Houston. It is surprising to many people that Houston, in dry Texas, has average annual precipitation that exceeds precipitation in Seattle (38 inches) in the rainforests of the Pacific Northwest. The main difference is that the precipitation in Seattle occurs rather steadily throughout the year, whereas Houston’s rain comes in a few great storms. In fact, the Texas water cycle is often described as ravaging decades-long epic droughts punctuated by biblical floods. A typical joke about the weather in El Paso goes like this: “El Paso only gets 14 inches of rain each year, and you don’t want to be there the day it happens.”While it is important to know how much rain falls and where it falls, there is more to the story: namely, when matters, too. Whether the rainfall is distributed evenly throughout the year or comes in bursts like the monsoons in southern Asia drives the rhythms of agriculture and design of the local societies. In Asia, whose monsoon season governs much of the culture, some places suffer drought for eleven months, only to endure torrential rains and floods from the monsoons for the remaining month.Simply stated, floods are a combination of extreme precipitation and changed ecosystems that cannot accommodate the extra water. The rate at which the rain falls is very important. At a slow rate, the rain can accumulate into lakes and reservoirs, trickle down into aquifers to recharge them, or soak into the soils, grasses and trees. A healthy ecosystem works to absorb the water. However, if the rate of rainfall exceeds the rate at which it can be absorbed, or if the ecosystem has been impacted in a way that reduces its ability to absorb water—for example, if parking lots have replaced fields or woods, or if paved canals have replaced natural rivers—then a flood is a likelier outcome than in prior eras. Floods are one part nature, and one part humanity. And the human part is a bigger contributor to floods than people realize. By building homes in floodplains, paving over grassy meadows, and bulldozing wetlands, we have diminished nature’s ability to absorb the water when it surges in. And we get floods that have higher propensity to kill, destroy cities, and wipe out infrastructure.Droughts are important, too. Droughts are expensive. 16 They can ruin crops, kill livestock herds, and inhibit recreation such as boating, floating, or fishing. The drought in California in 2014 caused losses in the agricultural sector exceeding $2 billion and 17,000 jobs. The one-year drought in Texas in 2011 led to $7 billion of damage. The one-year drought and heat wave in the midwestern United States in 2012 did $30 billion of damage and killed more than one hundred people. At its peak, the drought covered a majority of the land area of the United States and caused more than half of all counties to be disaster areas. Drought is a big enough concern that the U.S. government tracks it and makes the data publicly available through the U.S. Drought Monitor. 17All these factors—rainfall, drought, floods—combined with unequal population densities mean that renewable water availability per person is not uniform globally.Historically speaking, it is unusual and highly valuable that the United States invests in collecting such high-quality rainfall data and makes them available. Imagine how beneficial such information might have been for ancient societies such as the Anasazi Indians of the desert Southwest or the Mayans, which struggled with persistent drought. While they might have also had very sophisticated means of record-keeping, it is unlikely they possessed a mechanism for distributing that information as broadly as we can achieve today with Internet-enabled communications. Nor did they have satellites available to check the amount of water remaining in underground bank accounts.That we have detailed data and monitoring available is a testament to our ingenuity as a society. But it also means that we cannot claim ignorance for our decisions that make our water situation worse. We might be operating blind in many ways, but we are much better equipped with scientific data than ancient societies. And so if the wells run dry, we will only have ourselves and our shortsighted thinking to blame.Jill Boberg, a researcher at the RAND Corporation, wrote an excellent report entitled Liquid Assets that identifies the demographic factors around the world affecting water use: population, urbanization, standards of living, prevailing mix of economic sectors, and number of households. 18 As these factors change—the population grows, the number of households increases, and societies switch from agrarian to industrial modes—water demands will shift, too.In particular, the number of households and household size—the number of residents, not the square footage of the house—seem to be key drivers of consumption. As noted by Boberg, “Per capita, smaller households consume more water and produce more waste.” And, while the number of households is increasing globally, the number of people living in each household is decreasing. As we get richer, multigenerational households are shifting: instead of cramming three generations under one roof, where we share the laundry, cooking, and outdoor watering—we are setting up individual households, driving up water use.The per capita water use in the United States is relatively high. Because the United States is relatively affluent, the per capita withdrawals are quite high for municipal use for drinking, washing, and irrigating our lush lawns. In addition to being rich, the United States is a major agricultural producer (in contrast with other rich countries, such as Japan and the United Kingdom). Those agricultural needs drive water withdrawals up even further. Then, the United States also has an extensive industrial sector, with significant power generation, chemicals production, refining, mining, and other water-intensive activities. Consequently, North American water withdrawals (including Canada) are much higher than in other regions of the world. That might be fine for Canada, which possibly has more freshwater than any other country in the world, but for the United States, it can be a strain.These withdrawals can also be contemplated in terms of per capita water availability, which varies globally. In this context, availability means the amount of water that is accessible to people over the course of a year within a reasonable distance. While Asia has the most total water available, it also has the highest population, and subsequently the lowest per capita water availability. This measure of water’s abundance and availability to users is important when evaluating how trends in water withdrawals, coupled with the use of nonrenewable water sources, will trigger significant water strains.Water use in the United States is significant: every day we withdraw about 400 billion gallons and consume 100 billion gallons. 19 That works out to more than 1,300 gallons per person per day withdrawn, of which more than 300 gallons is consumed per person per day. Withdrawals refer to the water that is taken out of a water body, some of which is consumed and some of which is returned. Consumption refers to the water that is evaporated or otherwise lost; instead of being returned to the water source, it soaks into the soil or comes down as rain somewhere else.That water is withdrawn from a mixture of sources—groundwater and surface water—and from a variety of source qualities, including saline and fresh, for a mix of end-uses. While the U.S. daily withdrawals for the power sector are higher than for agriculture, globally, agriculture is a much larger cause of withdrawals. That’s because the United States and other richer societies use much more electricity, whereas poorer societies are much more agricultural. And, similar to the situation with energy, residents of the United States withdraw about twice as much water per person as Europeans and four times as much as Southeast Asians. Europe gets more rainfall, making irrigation less necessary, and Europeans have more favorable attitudes toward conservation. Also, while the power sector is responsible for the greatest volume of water withdrawals in the United States, the agricultural sector has the greatest water consumption. That consumption is from evapotranspiration during photosynthesis, when water moves up and out of plants; runoff; and water that trickles back down to aquifers.Water also serves an important role for transportation. It’s well known that railroads are more energy efficient at moving goods than trucks, cars, or planes, but many people do not realize that waterborne commerce is even more energy efficient—as long as you have the water in the first place and don’t mind the risk of spills and water contamination. In the United States, there are 11,000 miles of inland waterways that move half a million ton-miles of freight annually, which is nearly a third of the 1.7 million ton-miles of freight moved by 141,000 miles of railroads. 20 In particular, the lower Mississippi and its famous barges move a lot of cargo. In addition, almost all intercontinental freight (a result of globalization) is moved by water. This is especially true for the vast amount of crude petroleum that travels by supertankers on the oceans and barges moving coal and refined goods through canals and inland rivers.Water projects are a hallmark of a civilized society. They are also closely tied with politics, as water projects are often important symbols of political power built by and named for politicians. In the nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln ran on a platform of enhanced water infrastructure—namely, canals—for navigation and commerce. 21 Decades later, the largest dam in the world was built and eventually named for President Herbert Hoover. The first hydroelectric dams were not very large and were more reminiscent of the medieval overshot waterwheels that were used for mechanical power to grind grain, cut wood, or polish glass. The flowing water of the river rotated a massive wooden wheel that was connected by wooden gears and axles to a workhouse on the bank of the river. Early dam builders might create a small reservoir ten feet high, but generally speaking, these structures were not considered to have that great an impact on the river’s natural flow.After waterwheels had been used for hundreds of years, the first dams for generating electricity were built in the 1800s. The first one in the United States was at Niagara Falls in 1882. It simply diverted some of the natural flowing force of the water above the falls, and did not need to build a reservoir. One of those early dams, in Austin, Texas, spanned the Colorado River (not the same Colorado River that carved out the Grand Canyon in Arizona) and was called “The Great Dam.” When it was built in 1892, it was the largest dam in the world and was featured on the cover of Scientific American.The Great Dam was built for the same reasons as other early dams: for power, flood control, and irrigation. It also collapsed twice, over the first few decades of its life, foretelling one of the major risks of dams. One of those collapses had the fortunate outcome of creating an island in the middle of the lake in downtown Austin that today serves as a dog park where I occasionally take my dogs for a swim, so sometimes these unfortunate circumstances can yield a positive outcome.Today a dam of the same size stands in the very same spot, and it has a powerhouse with 16 megawatts of generating capacity. That capacity is absolutely tiny by the standards of a modern dam. That this little dam was once the world’s largest is a stark reminder of how much dams have grown over time: from a few megawatts in power a century ago to the gargantuan Three Gorges Dam in China today, which is 22,000 megawatts in power. If the little Austin dam can fail, what happens when the big ones fail?In the United States, the build-out of hydroelectric dams accelerated right after the Great Depression. Their pace and scale grew in tandem. The hydroelectric infrastructure was also tied to the economic recovery efforts during the Great Depression and to the military effort of World War II. The Great Depression created the economic motivation for large public works projects, while the war created the demand for electricity. In the 1930s, jobs were scarce, and large water projects were seen as a way to keep people working while achieving other useful benefits such as providing power and meeting the needs for navigation, commerce, recreation, flood control, and water storage. This is when the Hoover Dam (initially named the Boulder Dam) and several other prominent dams—the Shasta, the Grand Coulee, and so forth—were built. Dams today are still justified based on the multi-faceted benefits they offer. For example, the Sardar Sarovar Dam in India was designed to provide irrigation for a million farmers, drinking water for 29 million people, 1.5 gigawatts of power, and jobs for five thousand employees. 22Though the dams offered a variety of attractive benefits, they weren’t without their problems. And those problems inspired some resistance. To help overcome that resistance, the U.S. government invested in propaganda to persuade unconvinced stakeholders. They made films to serve as commercials for how important those dam projects were. They printed posters. And they even commissioned the folk musician Woody Guthrie, who wrote “This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land,” to pen a song about the dams along the Columbia River. It worked: the dams got built.Most of the early build-out in the United States was in the Pacific Northwest along the Columbia River basin and in the southeastern United States. The abundant electricity provided by these dams kicked off a large military effort located right next to the massive power plants. Because of World War II, which relied on airplanes more than any prior war in history, there was significant new demand for aluminum. Since aluminum is produced electrolytically from bauxite (by contrast, steel is produced thermally from iron ore), many aluminum smelters were located near the dams. 23 Abundant electricity enabled aluminum production at a pace that had never been seen before.In addition, there was significant demand for enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Since uranium is enriched with electrically driven centrifuges, the appetite for power was enormous. At one point during the peak of the war effort, 10 percent or more of national electricity consumption was dedicated just to enriching uranium. 24 Dams were a key piece of that effort, and consequently the main nuclear labs for uranium processing were established in Washington state near the Columbia River dams and in Tennessee near the dams built by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). It is telling that some of the Department of Energy’s main nuclear sites in the United States are still found in those locations: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.Dams are our modern-day temples. They are massive structures that it seems like politicians build in their own honor. And, according to Marc Reisner in Cadillac Desert, many of the dams in the United States were built partly as a consequence of bureaucratic rivalry between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.25 Traditionally, the Bureau of Reclamation builds water projects for irrigation purposes, to reclaim the land, so to speak. The Army Corps of Engineers has a mandate that includes building, widening, deepening, straightening, and managing canals, levees, and dams for the purposes of flood control and navigation. Neither explicitly has a mission to build power plants, but the hydroelectric capacity of the dams they were building for other purposes would often provide the economic justification for the projects in the first place.And so a bureaucratic race ensued to see who could build the biggest dams the fastest. Along the way, though, some negative impacts from large-scale water projects emerged: population displacement and ecosystem damage. Dams and the reservoirs they create can be incredibly large, and requires vast tracts of land. To gain the land for the projects, they had to flood many acres of ecosystem and displace a lot of people. Politicians do not build dams in rich areas: they build them in poor areas, displacing poor people. There are two main reasons for this phenomenon. First, the poor people lack the political power to prevent the loss of their land. Second, because dams require so much area, they are built where the land is cheap, which is also where poor people tend to live.Because of the controversy inherent to this story, American movies captured this pattern. The movie Wild River in 1960, starring Montgomery Clift and directed by famed moviemaker Elia Kazan, addressed this tension. The Depression-era plot focuses on a stubborn matriarch who refuses to let her island in the Tennessee River get flooded by the Tennessee Valley Authority. It was the conflict between letting rivers run wild, versus the drumbeat of progress for electricity and flood control. O Brother Where Art Thou, set in the 1930s and starring George Clooney, also captures this theme about how “the South is gonna change” because of a new dam.Another movie with this premise is Deliverance from 1972, which starred Burt Reynolds. The story follows four men who take a canoeing trip one last time before a river and its poor inhabitants are submerged and displaced by a new dam that is needed to “push a little more power into Atlanta for those smug little housewives.” That means the poor rural people and the land were going to be displaced and flooded forever just to make some rich people in the faraway city a little more comfortable. The movie’s theme—and opening dialogue—is one of rape: man rapes nature in the form of the dam cut into the hillsides. Then nature—in the form of a local hillbilly—rapes man.As Reisner pointed out, there was great irony in what happened when dams were built in the West and the East. 26 When dams were built in the eastern half of the United States, they flooded fertile farmland in the name of controlling floods and generating power. At the same time, dams were being built in the western half of the United States as a source for irrigating the desert. That is, we were building dams to create farmland in the West to make up for the farmland being lost to dams in the East. Not only that, but the farmers who lost their land, along with the rest of the taxpayers, subsidized this ordeal. This whole thing might seem preposterous, but that was the path the United States selected for building major dams.The ecosystem damage is hard to assess. While dams make electricity relatively cleanly, as there are no emissions at the point of power generation, they distort the landscape with a permanent mark. Fish and other animals cannot freely travel the rivers once dams are put in place. The old joke goes like this: “What does the fish say when he bumps into a wall? Dam.” Famously, salmon go upstream to spawn, fighting currents to go uphill many hundreds of miles and jumping over obstacles along the way. While they can impressively jump over small rapids a few feet tall, they cannot jump over dams. Consequently, some dams have installed “fish ladders” that are a cascading series of waterfall steps that allow the salmon to bypass the dam. But even if the salmon successfully navigate the fish ladder, their navigational systems, which benefit from a distinct current in the water, can get confused by the slack water on the other side of the dam. Fish can get caught going downstream, too. The whirling blades of the hydroelectric turbines have been known to filet the fish while they pass through. More recently there has been the advent of “fishfriendly” turbines that have broader spacing between the blades, which allows the fish to pass through with less likelihood of being injured.There are the other ecosystem impacts, too. Silting is a major problem. Sometimes silt is needed downstream because its minerals are useful for agriculture. But dams stop the flow of the silt, causing it to accumulate behind the concrete walls. Eventually, the silt will fill up the reservoir, causing the dam to lose its function. This phenomenon happens for natural dams and lakes, too. Mirror Lake in the Yosemite Valley was a beautiful glacial lake that reflected some of that national park’s greatest sites. It was formed by a natural dam of rocks and rubble left behind by the glaciers that caused water to pool up behind it. But over millennia, the natural lake has been filling up with silt such that it is now more of a pond than a lake and is filled only in the spring when the water levels are high. Eventually it will disappear altogether.Because there is no combustion at the point of use, no greenhouse gas emissions are released during power generation at hydroelectric dams. However, greenhouse gases are released due to the energy consumed during construction of the dam. Furthermore, the large reservoirs release significant amounts of methane from the anaerobic decomposition of organic biomatter that was flooded during the filling of the reservoir. 27 Since methane is a very active greenhouse gas, these emissions are important to determine. Unfortunately, estimating how much gas bubbles out of the reservoirs is very difficult and rife with uncertainty.There is also the undesirable impact that dams have on temperatures. 28 Usually temperatures are relatively uniform for a free-flowing river. But after a reservoir is built, the temperature can vary significantly from the water surface (relatively warm) to the bottom of the water column (relatively cold). When the water flowing through the turbines comes from the middle or bottom part of the reservoir, the water exits at a lower temperature than the temperatures to which the native river species are adapted. In some cold environments with surface-release dams, the opposite can happen: dams release water downstream from the relatively warmer surface, making downstream temperatures slightly higher than they would have been otherwise. In both situations, fish reproduction can be affected. Consequently, native river species must often migrate upstream of the dam to reach normal conditions or move downstream until temperatures stabilize.Because of all these ecosystem and human impacts, resistance to large dams grew along with the dams themselves. By the late 1970s, dam construction had mostly halted in the United States. Most of the good sites were already taken, anyway, and the opposition to dams had become significant and well organized. For the most part, large dams are hard to build anywhere in the rich, developed world. Yet in developing countries, the allure of dams and all the economic, political, and electrical power they represent is hard to resist.As a result, large dam construction is mostly taking place in poorer countries with growing economies. Those countries will get the same benefits—cheap electricity, flood control, navigation, and so on—but they will get the same problems, too. Flooded ecosystems, distorted fish migration, silting, and displacement of people are unavoidable. The Sardar Sarovar Dam in India displaced 150,000 people, and the world’s largest dam—the Three Gorges Dam in China—displaced 1.3 million people. 29The Three Gorges Dam had been desired by Chinese leaders for decades, and it was finally constructed in the 2000s. While it has helped to reduce the risks of flood-related disasters and improved the navigability of the Yangtze River, its creation flooded entire valleys and towns, displacing people and erasing towns. 30 Geologists worry about the earthquakes and underwater landslides that the water causes as the soft, soaked soils around the reservoir settle to accommodate the new load. In the first decade of its operation, the reservoir, which is as long as Great Britain, triggered more than five hundred earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 2.0 on the Richter scale and more than four hundred landslides. If the Three Gorges Dam were to collapse, it would put approximately 15 million downstream lives or more at risk. In the event of a collapse, the biggest manmade wall of water ever conceived would move quickly down the canyons, making it difficult for people to escape. Unfortunately, more than six hundred dams are either built, under construction, or in planning in the seismically active Himalayas, putting the dams at serious risk of failure. If the Tehri Dam in India collapses, scientists expect it would produce a wall of water two hundred meters high that would put 2 million people at risk. While we can hope such a catastrophe will not happen, unfortunately, dams collapse every once in a while. And, when they do, the results can be horrific.The Johnstown Flood of 1869, triggered by a collapsed dam, killed more than twenty-two hundred people in Pennsylvania. The dam collapse in Santa Clarita in 1928 killed six hundred people and is still reverberating through Southern California water politics. Even the movie Chinatown in 1974, starring Jack Nicholson and set in the 1930s, makes reference to the open wound of a collapsed dam. The collapse of the Grand Teton Dam along the Teton River in eastern Idaho in 1975 was caught on videotape, and it shows the powerful force of the water. Thankfully, it happened in the middle of the day, so only eleven people were killed. But the flood wiped out two small towns; if it had occurred in the middle of the night, thousands of people could have perished.The scale and risk of the Three Gorges Dam, in terms of both its water and its power, are enormous. It is the ultimate testament to human hubris, evidence that we believe we can tame the earth to suit our wishes. One of the towns flooded by this dam is the City of Ghosts, which was built more than eighteen hundred years ago and contains temples and shrines dedicated to the underworld. In the novel World War Z, which is about a global zombie pandemic, the flooded City of Ghosts is also the source of Patient Zero. It is implied that our hubris and disrespect for the underworld spawned the zombies. Subsequently, when a child in the story was swimming in the reservoir behind the dam, he was bitten by one of those zombies, starting the outbreak. So dams save us from floods and drought and give us electricity, but they also put us at risk of man-made floods and, if fictional books are to believed, might cause a zombie outbreak.Turns DroughtEffective BoR oversight is key to solve megadroughts in the Southwest.Baltz and Magill 21 – Tripp Baltz is a staff correspondent @ Bloomberg BNA, Bobby Magill is a reporter @ Bloomberg BNA, “Halting the Megadrought: The Bureau of Reclamation Explained”, Bloomberg Law, 6-25-2021, available online @ 2. Why is it important in addressing the drought?In the Southwest, the hardest-hit region, the seven states of the Colorado River Basin are implementing drought contingency plans and crafting a new management regime for the stressed, over-committed waterway. The bureau plays a crucial role in the process.Reclamation completed in December an initial review of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which help to manage shortages in the lower basin states of Arizona, Nevada, and California. The guidelines also help manage water in Lake Mead—the lower basin’s primary reservoir— as well as Lake Powell, the storage facility for the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.The drought has caused Lake Mead to fall to 36% capacity, its lowest level since it started filling in 1934. Lake Powell is so low it threatens the upper basin states’ ability to send the amount of water to which the lower basin is entitled to use under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the cornerstone agreement of the Law of the River.The 2007 Interim Guidelines will be in place until Dec. 31, 2025, when they’re to be replaced by new guidelines negotiated by the seven Colorado River Basin states. The bureau is overseeing the process of creating a new water management regime for the region.The bureau also is reprogramming money within its budget to address the drought, Deputy Commissioner David Palumbo told a Senate panel earlier this month. He said the request to Congress to shift funds would contain “a significant focus on drought mitigation and adaptation strategies.”Turns Drought---ExtContinued BOR development is key to combat unsustainable drought conditions in the CRB Robert Manning 21, Chief of Public Affairs @ the Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation names Carly Jerla to lead effort for updated Colorado River operating guidelines,” BoR, 06-21-2021, , // [nayak]WASHINGTON - The Bureau of Reclamation announced that Carly Jerla will lead the Department of the Interior's efforts, as a senior water resources program manager, to develop updated operating rules for Colorado River reservoirs. The Colorado River sustains ecosystems and economies across the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. A number of operating rules and agreements within the United States and with the Republic of Mexico expire at the end of 2025.Recognizing the challenges facing the Colorado River Basin, in March of 2021, the Interior created a critical senior leadership position within the Bureau of Reclamation to lead development of the next generation of operating rules for major reservoirs in the basin. This new position will ensure that new operating rules are developed in a thorough and transparent manner - working closely with the seven Colorado River Basin states, twenty-nine tribes, water districts, non-governmental organizations, and users in Mexico that are served by the Colorado River. “Reclamation has worked alongside our partners in the basin to ensure that plans are in place to respond to the current drought conditions, but we must continue to proactively develop innovative solutions that are sustainable beyond 2026,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Tanya Trujillo. “Carly Jerla will continue to play a key role in our collaborative approach to updating the Colorado River Basin’s operating rules and developing additional tools and agreements that recognize the needs of nearly 40 million people who rely on the river.”“Carly Jerla is the right person for this new position,” said Reclamation Deputy Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton. “Carly has exceptional technical and modeling skills, as well as a thorough understanding of the importance of working with our partners throughout the basin. She understands the importance of working together to find solutions - across agencies and across borders. During these times of drought and scarcity, Carly will build trust, build partnerships, and find solutions. She brings insight and integrity to her work, and we’re very pleased she will lead our intensive efforts in the months and years ahead.”Carly Jerla’s career has been devoted to improving the technical foundation for Reclamation’s operational decisions across the basin, as well as enhancing partners and stakeholder’s ability to engage in basin decision-making. Jerla joined Reclamation in 2005 as a graduate student at the University of Colorado’s Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems (CADSWES) in Boulder, Colorado. Currently, she leads a Modeling and Research Team based at CADSWES, which has responsibility for research and development of modeling applications and decision support for water operations and planning in the Colorado River Basin. She obtained a Bachelor of Science in civil and environmental engineering and engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University in 2002. She also earned a Master of Science in civil engineering from the University of Colorado in 2005.Jerla’s experience with Reclamation includes important work on many of the key analyses and agreements over the past two decades to include:Serving as one of the key technical analysts for the adoption of the 2007 Interim Guidelines that address coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead through 2026.Contributing to the 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study that defined current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin and developed and analyzed adaptation and mitigation strategies to resolve those imbalances over the next 50 years.Helping to lead and contributed to the 2018 Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study documenting how Partnership Tribes currently use their water, projecting how future water development could occur, and describing the potential effects of future tribal water development on the Colorado River System. The study also identifies challenges related to the use of tribal water and explores opportunities that provide a wide range of benefits to both Partnership Tribes and other water users.Contributing in the development of multiple new policy initiatives, most recently the Drought Contingency Plans finalized in 2019. These important plans reduced the risk of Colorado River reservoirs falling to critically low levels.Serving as co-lead for Interior’s technical Review of the effectiveness of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, known as the “7.D. report,” which was completed in December 2020.The Colorado River is a critical resource in the West because seven basin states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming - and 29 Tribes and the Republic of Mexico depend on it for water supply, hydropower production, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and other benefits. Absent the renewal and implementation of ongoing BOR drought solutions, the CRB will fall to critical levelsUpper Colorado Basin Public Affairs 21, Part of the Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation releases additional 5-year projections to support drought response planning efforts in the Colorado River Basin,” BoR, 07-08-21, , // [nayak]SALT LAKE CITY - As one element of the ongoing implementation of the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans for the Colorado River Basin, the Bureau of Reclamation today released additional 5-year projections on the Colorado River System based on June 2021 conditions.Five-year projections are typically modeled in January, April and August of each year. The additional June projections will inform the ongoing drought operations planning efforts at key Reclamation reservoirs in the Upper Colorado River Basin. These efforts are ongoing among Reclamation and the Colorado River Basin states under the Upper Basin Drought Response Operations Agreement.“The June 5-year projections for the Colorado River System reaffirm this is a serious situation,” said Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director. “We are actively engaged with the Colorado River Basin states and other partners to respond to changing conditions to avoid critical elevations at Lake Powell.”Projections for anticipated runoff in the Upper Colorado Basin have declined over the course of the spring. Using information based on recent hydrology (since 1988 and known as the Stress Test Hydrology), Reclamation notes several key findings for Lake Powell in the June 5-year projections:A 79% chance that Lake Powell will fall below its target water-surface elevation of 3,525 feet sometime next year.Lake Powell’s target water-surface elevation of 3,525 feet provides a 35 vertical-foot buffer designed to minimize the risk of dropping below the minimum power pool elevation of 3,490 feet, and balances the need to protect the infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam and to meet current operational obligations to the Lower Colorado River Division states of Arizona, California, and Nevada.Beyond 2022, Lake Powell's chances of falling to critical levels also increased.There is a 5% chance that Lake Powell will fall below minimum power pool elevation of 3,490 feet in 2023 and 17% in 2024.In the Lower Basin, the updated projections for Lake Mead continue to affirm the high likelihood of a first-ever shortage condition in the Lower Basin in calendar year 2022. Consistent with the 2007 Interim Guidelines, if Lake Mead’s end-of-calendar-year elevation is projected to be at or below 1,075 feet, Lake Mead would operate in a shortage condition in the upcoming year. The prescribed shortage reductions for Arizona and Nevada would also be coupled with water savings contributions under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. Mexico would reduce their allotment and make water savings contributions under Minute 323 to the 1944 U.S. Mexico Water Treaty. Consistent with the 2007 Interim Guidelines, the 2019 DCP and Minute 323, operational decisions for 2022 will be made by Reclamation in August 2021.Reclamation is also concerned with the longer-term projections, which show a higher likelihood of Lake Mead declining to the critical elevations of 1,025 and 1,000 feet by 2025. Based on the June update, the chance of this occurring by 2025 is 58% and 21%, respectively.Reclamation provides projections using two future hydrology scenarios: The Stress Test Hydrology based on the last 32 years, and the Full Hydrology based on the last 114 years. The Stress Test Hydrology provides more plausible near-term outlooks because it embeds the recent warming trend and current drought period. It is about 11% lower on average compared to the Full Hydrology.Assumptions about drought operations are included in these projections; drought response operation plans to protect Lake Powell are being developed by Reclamation and the Upper Division states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Pursuant to the provisions of the Drought Response Operations Agreement and the Companion Agreement, Reclamation will consult with the Lower Division states before finalizing drought response operation plans. If actual hydrology demonstrates an imminent need to protect the elevation at Lake Powell, the Secretary retains all applicable authority to adjust releases from the upstream initial units of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Blue Mesa reservoirs) before those operating plans can be finalized.Reclamation and the Colorado Basin states continue to closely monitor conditions to be prepared to meet the goals of the DROA in the months and years ahead.A key component of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin activities is the integration of sophisticated modeling tools and scientific research to inform water management decisions. Through a decades-long partnership with the Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Reclamation hydrologic engineers and hydrologists are actively collaborating with climate, hydrology and decision support scientists to provide advanced modeling tools. Their work is helping Reclamation link advances in science to water resource management decisions in the face of greater uncertainty and increased hydrologic and operational risks.Reclamation’s modeling and operations teams further refine these tools, such as the 24-Month studies, to make annual operational determinations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead through close coordination with water and power customers throughout the basin.Stable BoR solves rural shortages via conservation.WSWC 19 - The Western States Water Council is a government entity, an instrumentality of each and every participating state, consisting of representatives appointed by the governors of 18 western states, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Funding Needs”, Natural Resources Committee, 7-24-2019, available online @ federal commitment to authorized rural water supply projects in Montana, New Mexico, North and South Dakota that have languished due to inadequate funding for timely completion could be fulfilled benefiting rural communities, including many tribal communities. The WSWC has long supported greater investment in these authorized projects, on an expedited timetable, which would provide significant cost savings given increasing construction costs.15 Increased appropriations for WaterSMART programs would advance basin studies, cooperative watershed management, drought response assistance, water reclamation and reuse projects, and water conservation.Stable BoR solves rural shortages via desalination.Peter Soeth 21, Public Affairs Specialist @ the Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation awards $3.6 million to improve desalination technologies,” BoR, 03-02-2021, , // [nayak]WASHINGTON - The Bureau of Reclamation is awarding $3.6 million to 10 projects for advanced water treatment research and development. The Desalination and Water Purification Research Program funding seeks to improve technologies for water supply development from nontraditional waters, including seawater, brackish groundwater, and municipal wastewater."Interest in desalination as a water source is growing in the United States," said Chief Engineer David Raff. "Improving technologies to treat water will make the advanced treatment of water more affordable for communities throughout the country and increase water supplies for the nation."The Desalination and Water Purification Research Program supports President Biden's new Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad as it will help increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.Reclamation selected six laboratory projects and four pilot-scale research projects. The $3.6 million will be matched by $5.3 million in non-federal funding to support the research projects. The selected projects are:PILOT-SCALE PROJECTSCarollo Engineers, Inc. (Arizona) - $403,002Sephton Water Technology, Inc. (California) - $139,968Gradiant Osmotics LLC (Massachusetts) - $800,000Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Massachusetts) - $799,989LABORATORY PROJECTSYale University (Connecticut) - $250,000New Mexico Institute of Technology and Mining (New Mexico) - $249,969University of Cincinnati (Ohio) - $249,630SolMem, LLC (Texas) - $241,506University of Houston (Texas) - $249,466William Marsh Rice University (Texas) - $250,000A laboratory-scale study involving small flow rates. They are used to determine the viability of a novel process, new materials, or process modifications. A pilot-scale project tests a novel process to determine the technical, practical, and economic viability of the process and are generally preceded by laboratory studies that demonstrate if that the technology works.Turns Drought---BlackoutsProlonged megadrought causes cascading plant failures---risks multi-regional blackouts.Conca 21 – James Conca is an energy contributor @ Forbes, “Blackouts And Megadroughts – Decarbonization Without A Good Plan Just Makes Them Worse”, Forbes, 5-28-2021, available online @ western United States, from Washington down and around to New Mexico, is facing the largest risks of blackouts in history. California was bad enough last year.As Malik, Baker and Chediak discuss in Bloomberg Green, “The specter of blackouts highlights a paradox of the clean-energy transition: Extreme weather fueled by climate change is exposing cracks in society’s move away from fossil fuels, even as that shift is supposed to rein in the worst of global warming.”“States shuttering coal and gas-fired power plants simply aren’t replacing them fast enough to keep pace with the vagaries of an unstable climate, and the region’s existing power infrastructure is woefully vulnerable to wildfires (which threaten transmission lines), drought (which saps once-abundant hydropower resources) and heat waves (which play havoc with demand).”It’s even worse as California and other states shut nuclear plants, replacing them with gas. Or hopes and dreams. Shuttering coal plants has meant most of these states have to import electricity from their neighbors, a temporary move that only makes matters worse because the amount available to export dwindles as those neighbors have less and less to give. Presently, no western region generates enough electricity to meet high periods of demand, and all rely on imports to avoid blackouts.So what happens when all these states experience droughts, wildfires and record heat at the same time? Like what will probably happen this year?Bad things will happen.Turns Drought---Food PricesProlonged megadroughts in the Southwest raise food prices.Kay 21 – Grace Kay is a business news fellow @ Business Insider, “A 'megadrought' in California is expected to lead to water shortages for production of everything from avocados to almonds, and could cause prices to rise”, Business Insider, 6-4-2021, available online @ megadrought in California is threatening to push food prices even higher.The state is already facing its worst water shortage in four years and the its driest season has only just begun, according to data from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). As water levels continue to fall, farmers and ranchers will be unable to maintain key crops and feed livestock. As of Tuesday, nearly 75% of California was classified as in "extreme drought," meaning the land does not have adequate water supplies to sustain agriculture and wildlife, according to the NIDIS. While farmers have come to expect and prepare for droughts, this year has already been much hotter and drier than previous ones. Scorching California weather is drying up reservoirs, as well as the Sierra Nevada snowpack that helps supply them. The reservoirs are 50% lower than they should be in June, Jay Lund, co-director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California-Davis, told Associated Press.The farmer's plight could make products like almonds, avocados, and milk more expensive for shoppers as farmers struggle to produce crops of the state's top exports. California produces over 25% of the nation's food supply. California agriculture is a nearly $50 billion industry and is known for producing over 400 key commodities, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.Turns Invasive SpeciesStreamlined BoR funding solves invasive species threats.WSWC 19 - The Western States Water Council is a government entity, an instrumentality of each and every participating state, consisting of representatives appointed by the governors of 18 western states, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Funding Needs”, Natural Resources Committee, 7-24-2019, available online @ appropriating Reclamation Fund receipts for current and future authorized purposes would expedite completion of delayed projects, fund deferred maintenance, repair and replacement expenditures, expedite dam safety work and otherwise support expenditures for essential water and power development, environmental restoration and water conservation projects and programs. One advantage of a revolving fund, with respect to project operation and maintenance, would be the ability to more efficiently plan and schedule construction activity without the uncertainty surrounding annual appropriations acts.Specifically, greater investments could be made in California’s Central Valley Project and in the Columbia Basin Project, the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, the Dam Safety Program and the Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program. More emphasis could be placed on addressing invasive species threats to water infrastructure. Increasing investments would benefit the Klamath and Middle Rio Grande Projects and Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the Trinity River Restoration Program, and Yakima Project and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement.14Turns TribesStreamlined BoR solves Indian water rights.WSWC 19 - The Western States Water Council is a government entity, an instrumentality of each and every participating state, consisting of representatives appointed by the governors of 18 western states, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Funding Needs”, Natural Resources Committee, 7-24-2019, available online @ appropriating Reclamation Fund receipts for current and future authorized purposes would expedite completion of delayed projects, fund deferred maintenance, repair and replacement expenditures, expedite dam safety work and otherwise support expenditures for essential water and power development, environmental restoration and water conservation projects and programs. One advantage of a revolving fund, with respect to project operation and maintenance, would be the ability to more efficiently plan and schedule construction activity without the uncertainty surrounding annual appropriations acts.Specifically, greater investments could be made in California’s Central Valley Project and in the Columbia Basin Project, the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, the Dam Safety Program and the Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program. More emphasis could be placed on addressing invasive species threats to water infrastructure. Increasing investments would benefit the Klamath and Middle Rio Grande Projects and Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the Trinity River Restoration Program, and Yakima Project and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement.14Construction related to Indian water rights settlements could be expedited including the Aamodt, Blackfeet, and Crow settlements, as well as the Navajo-Gallup water supply project. Money would also be more readily available for pending and future settlements, including the Navajo Utah and Navajo-Hopi in Arizona.Dams ImpactFunding Key---2NCReclamation budget key to infrastructure modernizationArrington 19 – [Paul L. Arrington, July 24 2019, Executive Director & General Counsel, “, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Needs”, Bureau of Reclamation, ]Our nations water infrastructure is truly a marvel of the modern world – built with the foresight, grit and determination of prior generations. For over a century, our nation has benefited from this infrastructure. But, this infrastructure is ageing and in need of continued investment. Today, more than 86% of Reclamation managed dams are over 50-years old and a sizeable portion of Reclamation infrastructure is more than a century old. 1 In Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Region, of which Idaho is a part, the average age of dams is 80-years. For infrastructure generally, including dams, pipelines, canals, etc., the average age is 78-years old. In recent years, Reclamation has estimated its maintenance backlog to be as high as $3.2 billion. 2 Notably, Reclamation is not alone in facing aging infrastructure challenges. More than 50% of the dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers have reached or exceeded the 50-year service life for which they were designed.3 According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), the number of deficient dams rose by 137% between 1998 and 2015. Today more than 2,100 dams in the United States are classified as deficient and highly hazardous. Our nation has a significant aging infrastructure challenge. New Infrastructure is Needed to Meet Future Demands Aging infrastructure is just one part of the water infrastructure challenge. New water infrastructure is needed. According to combined estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Indian Health Service, more than $780 billion of water infrastructure investment is needed in the coming decades for drinking water, wastewater, and irrigation systems. For these reasons, it is critical that any congressional infrastructure package include water infrastructure funding. Water infrastructure needs affect every corner of our nation, from major metropolitan areas to rural communities. Water is a vital component of our nation’s infrastructure network – yet it is often overlooked. The Reclamation Fund Addressing our nation’s water infrastructure need is a monumental challenge – one that our nation faced and overcame in the early 1900’s. I am confident that, with similar fortitude and ingenuity, we are capable of doing so again. In his first address to Congress delivered on December 3, 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt stated: “water problems are perhaps the most vital internal questions of the United States.” To address these challenges, President Roosevelt established the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902. As part of the Reclamation Act, Congress created the Reclamation Fund.4 Originally, moneys in the Reclamation Fund were generated through the sale of western land and timber, as well as project repayment and water contracts.5 In 1920, Congress directed that 40% of royalties from onshore mineral leasing on public lands (excluding Alaska) be deposited in the Fund.6 In 1938, revenues from Reclamation project power sales were also added to the Fund. 7 As originally conceived, revenues deposited into the Reclamation Fund were used for Reclamation operations and infrastructure development.Collapse Impact---AT: DefenseCascades to all critical infrastructure---extinctionSean Lawson 11, Ph.D. Department of Communication, University of Utah, “Beyond Cyber-Doom: Cyberattack Scenarios and the Evidence of History,” Mercatus Center Working Paper No. 11-01, ScenariosDespite persistent ambiguity in cyber-threat perceptions, cyber-doom scenarios have remained an important tactic used by cybersecurity proponents. Cyber-doom scenarios are hypothetical stories about prospective impacts of a cyberattack and are meant to serve as cautionary tales that focus the attention of policy makers, media, and the public on the issue of cybersecurity. These stories typically follow a set pattern involving a cyberattack disrupting or destroying critical infrastructure. Examples include attacks against the electrical grid leading to mass blackouts, attacks against the financial system leading to economic losses or complete economic collapse, attacks against the transportation system leading to planes and trains crashing, attacks against dams leading floodgates to open, or attacks against nuclear power plants leading to meltdowns (Cavelty, 2007: 2).Recognizing that modern infrastructures are closely interlinked and interdependent, such scenarios often involve a combination of multiple critical infrastructure systems failing simultaneously, what is sometimes referred to as a “cascading failure.” This was the case in the “Cyber Shockwave” war game televised by CNN in February 2010, in which a computer worm spreading among cell phones eventually led to serious disruptions of critical infrastructures (Gaylord, 2010). Even more ominously, in their recent book, Richard Clarke and Robert Knake (2010: 64–68) present a scenario in which a cyberattack variously destroys or seriously disrupts all U.S. infrastructure in only fifteen minutes, killing thousands and wreaking unprecedented destruction on U.S. cities.Surprisingly, some argue that we have already had attacks at this level, but that we just have not recognized that they were occurring. For example, Amit Yoran, former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cyber Security Division, claims that a “cyber9/11” has already occurred, “but it’s happened slowly so we don’t see it.” As evidence, he points to the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, as well as other incidents in which the computer systems of government agencies or contractors have been infiltrated and sensitive information stolen (Singel, 2009). Yoran is not alone in seeing the 2007 Estonia attacks as an example of the cyberdoom that awaits if we do not take cyber threats seriously. The speaker of the Estonian parliament, Ene Ergma, has said that “When I look at a nuclear explosion, and the explosion that happened in our country in May, I see the same thing” (Poulsen, 2007).Cyber-doom scenarios are not new. As far back as 1994, futurist and best-selling author Alvin Toffler claimed that cyberattacks on the World Trade Center could be used to collapse the entire U.S. economy. He predicted that “They [terrorists or rogue states] won’t need to blow up the World Trade Center. Instead, they’ll feed signals into computers from Libya or Tehran or Pyongyang and shut down the whole banking system if they want to. We know a former senior intelligence official who says, ‘Give me $1 million and 20 people and I will shut down America. I could close down all the automated teller machines, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and most hospital and business computer systems’” (Elias, 1994).But we have not seen anything close to the kinds of scenarios outlined by Yoran, Ergma, Toffler, and others. Terrorists did not use cyberattack against the World Trade Center; they used hijacked aircraft. And the attack of 9/11 did not lead to the long-term collapse of the U.S. economy; we would have to wait for the impacts of years of bad mortgages for a financial meltdown. Nor did the cyberattacks on Estonia approximate what happened on 9/11 as Yoran has claimed, and certainly not nuclear warfare as Ergma has claimed. In fact, a scientist at the NATO Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, which was established in Tallinn, Estonia in response to the 2007 cyberattacks, has written that the immediate impacts of those attacks were “minimal” or “nonexistent,” and that the “no critical services were permanently affected” (Ottis, 2010: 72).Nonetheless, many cybersecurity proponents continue to offer up cyber-doom scenarios that not only make analogies to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but also hold out economic, social, and even civilizational collapse as possible impacts of cyberattacks. A report from the Hoover Institution has warned of so-called “eWMDs” (Kelly & Almann, 2008); the FBI has warned that a cyberattack could have the same impact as a “wellplaced bomb” (, 2010b); and official DoD documents refer to “weapons of mass disruption,” implying that cyberattacks might have impacts comparable to the use of WMD (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004, 2006). John Arquilla, one of the first to theorize cyberwar in the 1990s (Arquilla & Ronfeldt, 1997), has spoken of “a grave and growing capacity for crippling our tech-dependent society” and has said that a “cyber 9/11” is a matter of if, not when (Arquilla, 2009). Mike McConnell, who has claimed that we are already in an ongoing cyberwar (McConnell, 2010), has even predicted that a cyberattack could surpass the impacts of 9/11 “by an order of magnitude” (The Atlantic, 2010). Finally, some have even compared the impacts of prospective cyberattacks to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed roughly a quarter million people and caused widespread physical destruction in five countries (Meyer, 2010); suggested that cyberattack could pose an “existential threat” to the United States ( 2010b); and offered the possibility that cyberattack threatens not only the continued existence of the United States, but all of “global civilization” (Adhikari, 2009).AND, regardless of direct costs, the response overstretches institutional capacity which erodes broader resilience to existential riskNafeez Ahmed 18, bestselling author, investigative journalist, international security scholar, policy expert, filmmaker, strategy and communications consultant, and change activist, “Global Heatwave is Symptom of Early Stage Cycle of Civilisational Collapse,” Resilience, 8-2-2018, southern Laos, heavy rains led to a dam collapse, rendering thousands of people homeless and flooding several villages.Most of the traditional media did not report these incidents as symptoms of an evolving climate crisis.Some commentators did point out that the events might be linked to climate change.None at all acknowledged that these extreme weather events might be related to the fact that since 2015, we have essentially inhabited a planet that is already around 1C warmer than the pre-industrial average: and that therefore, we are already, based on the best available science, inhabiting a dangerous climate.The breaching of the 1C tipping point?—?which former NASA climate science chief James Hansen pinpointed as the upper limit to retain a safe climate?—?was followed this March by atmospheric carbon concentrations reaching, for the first time since records began, 400 ppm (parts per million).Once again, the safe upper limit highlighted by Hansen and colleagues?—?350 ppm?—?has already been breached.Yet these critical climate milestones have been breached consecutively with barely a murmur from either the traditional and alternative media.The recent spate of catastrophic events are not mere anomalies. They are the latest signifiers of a climate system that is increasingly out of balance?—?a system that was already fatally struck off balance through industrial overexploitation of natural resources centuries ago.Our sense-making apparatus is brokenBut for the most part, the sense-making apparatus by which we understand what is happening in the world?—?the Global Media-Industrial Complex (a network of media communications portals comprised of both traditional corporate and alternative outlets)?—?has failed to convey these stark realities to the vast majority of the human population.We are largely unaware that 19th and early 20th century climate change induced by industrial fossil fuel burning has already had devastating impacts on the regional climate of Sub-Saharan Africa; just as it now continues to have escalating devastating impacts on weather systems all over the world.The reality which we are not being told is this: these are the grave consequences of inhabiting a planet where global average temperatures are roughly 1C higher than the pre-industrial norm.Sadly, instead of confronting this fundamentally existential threat to the human species?—?one which in its fatal potential implications point to the bankruptcy of the prevailing paradigms of social, political and economic organisation (along with the ideology and value-systems associated with them)?—?the preoccupation of the Global Media-Industrial Complex is at worst to focus human mind and behaviour on consumerist trivialities.At best, its focus is to pull us into useless, polarising left-right dichotomies and forms of impotent outrage that tend to distract us from taking transformative systemic action, internally (within and through our own selves, behaviour psychologies, beliefs, values, consciousness and spirit) and externally (in our relationships as well as our structural-institutional and socio-cultural contexts).Collapse happens when the system is overwhelmedThese are the ingredients for the beginning of civilisational collapse processes. In each of these cases, we see how extreme weather events induced by climate change creates unanticipated conditions for which international, national and local institutions are woefully unprepared.In order to respond, massive new expenditures are involved, including emergency mobilisations as well as new spending to try to build more robust adaptations that might be better prepared ‘next time’.But the reality is that we are already failing to avert an ongoing trajectory of global temperatures rising to not merely a dangerous 2C (imagine a doubling intensity of the sorts of events we’ve seen this summer happening year on year); but, potentially, as high as 8C (the catastrophic impacts of which would render much of the planet uninhabitable).In these contexts, we can begin to see how a protracted collapse process might unfold. Such a collapse process does not in itself guarantee the ‘end of the world’, or even simply the disappearance of civilisation.What it does imply is that specific political, economic, social, military and other institutional systems are likely to become increasingly overwhelmed due to rising costs of responding to unpredictable and unanticipated climate wild cards.It should be noted that as those costs are rising, we are simultaneously facing diminishing economic returns from our constant overexploitation of planetary resources, in terms of fossil fuels and other natural resourcs.In other words, in coming decades, business-as-usual implies a future of tepid if not declining economic growth, amidst escalating costs of fossil fuel consumption, compounded by exponentially accelerating costs of intensifying climate impacts as they begin to erode and then pummel and then destroy the habitable infrastructure of industrial civilisation as we know it.Collapse does not arrive in this scenario as a singular point of terminal completion. Rather, collapse occurs as a a series of discrete but consecutive and interconnected amplifying feedback processes by which these dynamics interact and worsen one another.Earth System Disruption (ESD)?—?the biophysical processes of climate, energy and ecological breakdown?—?increasingly lead to Human System Destabilisation (HSD). HSD in turn inhibits our capacity to meaningfully respond and adapt to the conditions of ESD. ESD, meanwhile, simply worsens. This, eventually, leads to further HSD. The cycle continues as a self-reinforcing amplifying feedback loop, and each time round the cycle comprises a process of collapse.This model, which I developed in my Springer Energy Briefs study Failing States, Collapse Systems, demonstrates that the type of collapse we are likely to see occurring in coming years is a protracted, cyclical process that worsens with each round. It is not a final process, and it is not set-in-stone. At each point, the possibility of intervening at critical points to mitigate, ameliorate, adapt, or subvert still exists. But it gets harder and harder to do so effectively the deeper into the collapse cycle we go.Collapse Impact---Yes CascadeCollapse will be irreversible and rapid---cascading failures can cause large disruptions in just fifteen minutes. Lawson 11 – Sean Lawson is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, “BEYOND CYBER-DOOM: Cyberattack Scenarios and the Evidence of History”, Mercantus Center, January 2011, online @ persistent ambiguity in cyber-threat perceptions, cyber-doom scenarios have remained an important tactic used by cybersecurity proponents. Cyber-doom scenarios are hypothetical stories about prospective impacts of a cyberattack and are meant to serve as cautionary tales that focus the attention of policy makers, media, and the public on the issue of cybersecurity. These stories typically follow a set pattern involving a cyberattack disrupting or destroying critical infrastructure. Examples include attacks against the electrical grid leading to mass blackouts, attacks against the financial system leading to economic losses or complete economic collapse, attacks against the transportation system leading to planes and trains crashing, attacks against dams leading floodgates to open, or attacks against nuclear power plants leading to meltdowns (Cavelty, 2007: 2).Recognizing that modern infrastructures are closely interlinked and interdependent, such scenarios often involve a combination of multiple critical infrastructure systems failing simultaneously, what is sometimes referred to as a “cascading failure.” This was the case in the “Cyber Shockwave” war game televised by CNN in February 2010, in which a computer worm spreading among cell phones eventually led to serious disruptions of critical infrastructures (Gaylord, 2010). Even more ominously, in their recent book, Richard Clarke and Robert Knake (2010: 64–68) present a scenario in which a cyberattack variously destroys or seriously disrupts all U.S. infrastructure in only fifteen minutes, killing thousands and wreaking unprecedented destruction on U.S. cities.Even a single dam failure would heighten the risk for other downstream dams to fail.Burk and Kallberg 16 – Rosemary A. Burk is a Ph.D. Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Dr. Jan Kallberg is a Research Scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point and an Assistant Professor in Political Science at the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy at West Point, “Cyber Defense as a part of Hazard Mitigation: Comparing High Hazard Potential Dam Safety Programs in the United States and Sweden”, Homeland Security & Emergency Management 2016; 13(1): 77–94, online @ effects of a successful cyberattack could release massive amounts of water in a short timeframe that increases the stress and likelihood for failure for dams further downstream. For example, a series of dam failures in a large watershed could result in high loss of human lives, significant property damage, widespread environmental impacts and disruption to societal infrastructure. Hydroelectric dams and reservoirs are controlled using different computer networks, either cable or wireless, and the control networks connect to the Internet. “A breach in the cyberdefenses of an electric utility company could lead all the way down to the logic controllers that instruct the electric machinery to open the floodgates” (Kallberg and Burk 2014). Commonly, hydroelectric dams and reservoirs are built in a series along the river’s length to maximize the capacity for electricity generation and take advantage of power generated by sharp declines in elevation. A cyberattack on one or more dams in the upper watershed could release water that would rapidly increase pressure on downstream dams. With rapidly diminishing storage capacity, downstream dams would be vulnerable to breach. Eventually, the attack could have a cascading effect, literally and figuratively, through the river system and result in a catastrophic flood.Collapse Impact---Meltdowns ImpactNuclear reactors could be damaged from upstream dam collapsesAndrew Palmer, 6-7-2018, Palmer is an author. "Possible threat to US Nuclear Plants from Boone Dam Failure," World in Crisis, have been recent reports of problems at the Boone Dam in Tennessee, which is upstream of seven nuclear reactors. Although the indications are that the problems will be solved, the seepage at the dam means that the potential failure of such dams, and associated threats to nuclear facilities, should be reexamined. The problems include the fact that dams can fail, and that seepage can be evidence of potential failure, that excessive flooding may result from dam failure, and that downstream nuclear plants may not be resilient in the face of such an event. There is also recent evidence, from the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, that the Eastern United States is more vulnerable to earthquakes than has previously been considered and that the effects of earthquakes in the region can travel for very long distances from the epicentre. The US has a large number of inland nuclear plants, some of which are around 40 years old. There is continuing argument as to the safety of the design of older US reactors in the light of the failure at Fukushima Daiichi. In this article I have tried to present some of the issues for consideration, without making judgement.The American Society of Civil Engineers has stated that, “The average age of the 84,000 dams in the country [USA] is 52 years old. The nation’s dams are aging and the number of high-hazard dams is on the rise. Many of these dams were built as low-hazard dams protecting undeveloped agricultural land. However, with an increasing population and greater development below dams, the overall number of high-hazard dams continues to increase, to nearly 14,000 in 2012. The number of deficient dams is estimated at more than 4,000, which includes 2,000 deficient high-hazard dams. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates that it will require an investment of $21 billion to repair these aging, yet critical, high-hazard dams.”A Press statement by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stated that “On October 30, 2014, at 1100 EDT, TVA conducted a briefing for government officials and other stakeholders regarding the decision to accelerate the Boone Reservoir annual drawdown after discovery of a sink hole near the base of the embankment and a small amount of water and sediment found seeping from the river below the dam. TVA is continuously monitoring the dam and conducting an investigation to determine the source of the water seepage. The dam is located upstream of all three TVA nuclear sites. There are currently no nuclear plant operability or safety issues, and TVA is assessing the impacts on the plant licensing bases.”On the 30th October 2014 The Johnson City Press had reported: “When an Oct. 20 inspection of the dam revealed a sink hole — a common occurrence — TVA workers repaired it quickly. Six days later, an uncommon occurrence happened when seepage was found near the location of the sink hole at the base of the dam.” Boone Dam is near the border with Virginia, where a M5.9 earthquake occurred in 2011. This earthquake was important because the USGS found that, the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. The USGS stated that: “This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.” Jibson and Harp stated that “The 23 August 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake (Mw 5.8) was the largest to strike the eastern U.S. since 1897 and was felt over an extraordinarily large area.”Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of a study published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, said, “What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S. Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.” The USGS said that. “It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.” They added that, “In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2 from an earthquake of similar magnitude.” Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of the study said, “The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded. There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.” According to the USGS, “The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.”Boone Dam was well outside the area affected by the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, it is 436 km, or 271 miles from Mineral, but the USGS report and 2012 study indicates that the risk factors associated with East Coast earthquakes are higher than normally planned for. The concerns associated with the Boone Dam are the possible consequences of any failure of the dam to the seven nuclear plants down-stream of the dam.In September 2012 Tom Zeller, Jr., writing in The Huffington Press, reported that, “Richard H. Perkins, a reliability and risk engineer with the agency’s division of risk analysis, alleged that NRC officials falsely invoked security concerns in redacting large portions of a report detailing the agency’s preliminary investigation into the potential for dangerous and damaging flooding at U.S. nuclear power plants due to upstream dam failure. Perkins, along with at least one other employee inside NRC, also an engineer, suggested that the real motive for redacting certain information was to prevent the public from learning the full extent of these vulnerabilities, and to obscure just how much the NRC has known about the problem, and for how long. “What I’ve seen,” Perkins said in a phone call, “is that the NRC is really struggling to come up with logic that allows this information to be withheld.” Another engineer, interviewed by Zeller, added real concerns about the Oconee nuclear plant. “Among the redacted findings in the July 2011 report — and what has been known at the NRC for years, the engineer said — is that the Oconee facility, which is operated by Duke Energy, would suffer almost certain core damage if the Jocassee dam were to fail. And the odds of it failing sometime over the next 20 years, the engineer said, are far greater than the odds of a freak tsunami taking out the defenses of a nuclear plant in Japan.”There are currently 61 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 99 nuclear reactors in 30 states in the United States. Thirty-five of these plants have two or more reactors. The majority of US nuclear reactors are dependent on rivers for cooling. In the light of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster there have been growing concerns about nuclear safety, especially for older reactors, some reactors, like Oyster Creek in New Jersey, are over forty years old.Meltdowns cause extinctionChristopher Allen Slocum 15, VP @ AO&G, “A Theory for Human Extinction: Mass Coronal Ejection and Hemispherical Nuclear Meltdown,” 07/21/15, The Hidden Costs of Alternative Energy Series, our intelligence we have littered the planet with massive spent nuclear fuel pools, emitting lethal radiation in over-crowded conditions, with circulation requirements of electricity, water-supply, and neutron absorbent chemicals. The failure of any of these conditions for any calculable or incalculable reason, will release all of a pool’s cesium into the atmosphere, causing 188 square miles to be contaminated, 28,000 cancer deaths and $59 billion in damage. As of 2003, 49,000 tons of SNF was stored at 131 sites with an additional 2,000-2,400 metric tons produced annually. The NRC has issued permits, and the nuclear industry has amassed unfathomable waste on the premise that a deep geological storage facility would be available to remediate the waste. The current chances for a deep geological storage facility look grim. The NAS has required geologic stability for 1,000,000 years. It is impossible to calculate any certainty 1,000,000 years into the future. Humanity could not even predict the mechanical failures at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, nor could it predict the size of the tsunami that triggered three criticality events at Fukushima Daiichi. These irremediable crises span just over 70 years of human history.How can the continued production and maintenance of SNF in pools be anything but a precedent to an unprecedented human cataclysm? The Department of Energy’s outreach website explains nuclear fission for power production, providing a timeline of the industry. The timeline ends, as does most of the world’s reactor construction projects in the 1990s, with the removal of the FCMs from Three Mile Island. One would think the timeline would press into the current decade, however the timeline terminates with the question, “How can we minimize the risk? What do we do with the waste?” (The History of Nuclear Energy 12). Nearly fifteen years into the future, these questions are no closer to an answer. The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi are still emitting radioisotopes into the atmosphere, and their condition is unstable. TEPCO has estimated it could take forty years to recover all of the fuel material, and there are doubts as to whether the decontamination effort can withstand that much time (Schneider 72). A detailed analysis of Chernobyl has demonstrated that nuclear fall-out, whether from thermonuclear explosions, spent fuel pool fires, or reactor core criticality events are deleterious to the food-chain. Cesium and strontium are taken into the roots of plants and food crops, causing direct human and animal contamination from ingestion, causing cancer, teratogenicity, mutagenesis and death. Vegetation suffers mutagenesis, reproductive loss, and death. Radioactive fields and forest floors decimate invertebrate and rodent variability and number necessary to supply nature’s food-chain and life cycles. The flesh and bones of freshwater and oceanic biota contribute significantly to the total radiation dose in the food-chain. Fresh water lakes, rivers and streams become radioactive. Potable aquafers directly underlying SNFs and FCMs are penetrated by downward migration of radioisotopes. Humans must eat to live. Humans must have water. No human can survive 5 Sv of exposure to ionizing radiation, many cannot survive exposure to 1 Sv.Realizing the irremediable devastation caused by one thermonuclear warhead, by one Chernobyl, by one Fukushima Daiichi, it remains to be said that the earth can handle as many simultaneous loss of coolant failures as nature can create. Humanity cannot. It is not good enough to lead by relegating probable human wide extinction phenomena to an appeal to lack of evidence. Policy cannot indefinitely ignore responsibility by requiring further study. Nor can leadership idle into cataclysm by relying on the largest known natural phenomena of the last 200 years. Permitting construction and continued operation of malefic machinery, based on 200 years of cataclysmic experience is a protocol for calamity. Of coronal mass ejections, Hapgood warns, that we need to prepare for a once-in-1000-year event, not just simulate infrastructure safeties by the measure of what we have seen in the past. The same is true for all natural phenomena. The future of humanity is too precious to operate with such insouciance. The engineering is not good enough. It never will be. Nature is too unpredictable, and nuclear power is too dangerous. Collapse Impact---Meltdowns Impact---I/LDam failure causes mass flooding that threatens nuclear plant failures.Palmer 15 – Andrew Palmer is the author of The World In Crisis which explores systemic risks to society, “Possible threat to US Nuclear Plants from Boone Dam Failure”, The World In Crisis, 3-21-2015, available online @ *thanks JMP*condensed for readabilityThere have been recent reports of problems at the Boone Dam in Tennessee, which is upstream of seven nuclear reactors. Although the indications are that the problems will be solved, the seepage at the dam means that the potential failure of such dams, and associated threats to nuclear facilities, should be reexamined. The problems include the fact that dams can fail, and that seepage can be evidence of potential failure, that excessive flooding may result from dam failure, and that downstream nuclear plants may not be resilient in the face of such an event. There is also recent evidence, from the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, that the Eastern United States is more vulnerable to earthquakes than has previously been considered and that the effects of earthquakes in the region can travel for very long distances from the epicentre. The US has a large number of inland nuclear plants, some of which are around 40 years old. There is continuing argument as to the safety of the design of older US reactors in the light of the failure at Fukushima Daiichi. In this article I have tried to present some of the issues for consideration, without making judgement.The American Society of Civil Engineers has stated that, “The average age of the 84,000 dams in the country [USA] is 52 years old. The nation’s dams are aging and the number of high-hazard dams is on the rise. Many of these dams were built as low-hazard dams protecting undeveloped agricultural land. However, with an increasing population and greater development below dams, the overall number of high-hazard dams continues to increase, to nearly 14,000 in 2012. The number of deficient dams is estimated at more than 4,000, which includes 2,000 deficient high-hazard dams. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates that it will require an investment of $21 billion to repair these aging, yet critical, high-hazard dams.”A Press statement by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stated that “On October 30, 2014, at 1100 EDT, TVA conducted a briefing for government officials and other stakeholders regarding the decision to accelerate the Boone Reservoir annual drawdown after discovery of a sink hole near the base of the embankment and a small amount of water and sediment found seeping from the river below the dam. TVA is continuously monitoring the dam and conducting an investigation to determine the source of the water seepage. The dam is located upstream of all three TVA nuclear sites. There are currently no nuclear plant operability or safety issues, and TVA is assessing the impacts on the plant licensing bases.”On the 30th October 2014 The Johnson City Press had reported: “When an Oct. 20 inspection of the dam revealed a sink hole — a common occurrence — TVA workers repaired it quickly. Six days later, an uncommon occurrence happened when seepage was found near the location of the sink hole at the base of the dam.” Boone Dam is near the border with Virginia, where a M5.9 earthquake occurred in 2011. This earthquake was important because the USGS found that, the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. The USGS stated that: “This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.” Jibson and Harp stated that “The 23 August 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake (Mw 5.8) was the largest to strike the eastern U.S. since 1897 and was felt over an extraordinarily large area.”Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of a study published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, said, “What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S. Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.” The USGS said that. “It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.” They added that, “In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2 from an earthquake of similar magnitude.” Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of the study said, “The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded. There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.” According to the USGS, “The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.”Boone Dam was well outside the area affected by the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, it is 436 km, or 271 miles from Mineral, but the USGS report and 2012 study indicates that the risk factors associated with East Coast earthquakes are higher than normally planned for. The concerns associated with the Boone Dam are the possible consequences of any failure of the dam to the seven nuclear plants down-stream of the dam.In September 2012 Tom Zeller, Jr., writing in The Huffington Press, reported that, “Richard H. Perkins, a reliability and risk engineer with the agency’s division of risk analysis, alleged that NRC officials falsely invoked security concerns in redacting large portions of a report detailing the agency’s preliminary investigation into the potential for dangerous and damaging flooding at U.S. nuclear power plants due to upstream dam failure. Perkins, along with at least one other employee inside NRC, also an engineer, suggested that the real motive for redacting certain information was to prevent the public from learning the full extent of these vulnerabilities, and to obscure just how much the NRC has known about the problem, and for how long. “What I’ve seen,” Perkins said in a phone call, “is that the NRC is really struggling to come up with logic that allows this information to be withheld.” Another engineer, interviewed by Zeller, added real concerns about the Oconee nuclear plant. “Among the redacted findings in the July 2011 report — and what has been known at the NRC for years, the engineer said — is that the Oconee facility, which is operated by Duke Energy, would suffer almost certain core damage if the Jocassee dam were to fail. And the odds of it failing sometime over the next 20 years, the engineer said, are far greater than the odds of a freak tsunami taking out the defenses of a nuclear plant in Japan.”There are currently 61 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 99 nuclear reactors in 30 states in the United States. Thirty-five of these plants have two or more reactors. The majority of US nuclear reactors are dependent on rivers for cooling. In the light of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster there have been growing concerns about nuclear safety, especially for older reactors, some reactors, like Oyster Creek in New Jersey, are over forty years old.Accordingly, it is reasonable that the possible impacts of earthquakes and floods are better understood, as the risk of catastrophic failure of nuclear plants is one of the most serious threats our societies face today. It is also important to understand that dams can fail, and as Patrick J. Regan said in Hydro Review (1st June 2010), “Dam safety professionals must be ever vigilant in their efforts to assure the safety of dams and other water retention or control structures under their charge; whether owner, regulator or consultant, none can be complacent when it comes to dam safety. And yet, all too often complacency creeps in when a dam has had a lengthy history of apparent successful operation. How many times have we heard, or used the words, ‘The dam’s been OK for 50 years. Why are you worried about it now?’ During many Potential Failure Mode Analysis sessions conducted by the [US] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, this reasoning came up as a way to lower the categorization of a potential failure mode. We seem to forget that dams are subject to many of the affects of aging and exposure that we are all subject to.” Regan added, “Seepage related incidents are the most common modes of failure in the early years of a dam’s life and continue to be an important potential failure mode over the longterm.”Modeling Impact---2NCChina models successful US dam safetyWorkman 07 – James Workman creates natural resource conservation markets for water, energy and marine life. He wrote the award-winning Heart of Dryness: How the Last Bushmen Can Help Us Endure the Coming Age of Permanent Drought, and Sea Change: The Quiet Revolution Transforming Life Offshore–and On (ForeEdge), “How to Fix Our Dam Problems”, Issues, Fall 2007, online @ We regard as distinct each dam operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority, or Bonneville Power Administration. Together those public projects total half of the nation’s hydropower generation, but each is often seen as outside the laws that govern private hydropower authorized under the Federal Power Act. In turn, the 2,000 hydro dams overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fall into one category and the 77,000 nonhydro (but federally registered) dams into another. We see 39,000 public dams as different from 40,000 private dams. We regulate irrigation dams differently from navigation dams and assign water rights to dams in western states but apply common law in eastern states, even when dams share the same river. Two dams on the same stream owned by the same company are subject to different environmental laws. We put 2.5 million small dams in a different category from 79,000 larger dams. The predictable mess is arbitrary and absurd and cries out for an overarching national policy.Taking note of seemingly contradictory trends around dam construction and destruction worldwide, one might ask, “How far will the current trends go? How many old dams are we talking about repairing or removing? Hundreds? Thousands? A few big ones? A million little ones? Do we need more dams or fewer?”Such questions largely miss the point of the policy envisioned here. We don’t need a specific number of dams, but rather we need healthier rivers, safer societies, and a more efficient and disciplined water-development infrastructure. How we get there is beyond the capacity of a single person to decide; only through a flexible horizontal market can we answer, together. A government policy can be the catalyst for and guide the direction of this market because it removes personal, political, ideological, and geographic biases from the equation. Nothing environmental and safety activists say or do can prevent new dam construction, and nothing dam supporters say or do can prevent old dams from coming down. But if the nation’s anti-dam and pro-dam interests were gathered collectively under the same fixed national ceiling and left to their own devices, Adam Smith’s “human propensity to truck, barter and exchange” could unite with the spirit of Thoreau’s civil “wildness.” A cap-and-trade dam policy’s embedded incentives would encourage the market’s invisible hand while ensuring its green thumb.The United States once led the world in the construction of dams, but over time, many have deteriorated. Now, under a cap-and-trade policy, it can bring horizontal discipline to that vertical stockpile of fixed liabilities, reducing risks while improving the health and safety of living communities. The United States can once again show the way forward on river development. Through such a cap-and-trade policy it can help dams smoothly and efficiently evolve with the river economies to which they belong.Let us close where we began, with Governor Schwarzenegger. If states are indeed the laboratories of U.S. democracy, he stands in a unique position to mount a market-based experiment for the United States as part of his agenda to build bigger, higher, and more new dams for water storage. He has already expanded in-state cap-and-trade schemes in water transfers, endangered species habitats, ocean fishery rights, and carbon emissions. He is open to the idea of removing the O’Shaughnessy Dam that has submerged Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park, even while he seeks more water storage elsewhere. Now, as the governor makes his pitch for big new multibillion dollar dams to save California from parched oblivion, he and other governors, not to mention heads of state from Beijing to Madrid to New Delhi to Washington, DC, could institute effective new policies to protect Earth’s liquid assets.Modeling Impact---BrinkGorges Dam on verge of overflowing – U.S. needs to be prepared.Hitch 20 – [John Hitch, July 27 2020, senior editor for FleetOwner, “Flooding in China could be latest disaster to disrupt U.S. trucking industry”, FleetOwner, ]The Three Gorges Dam, which is nearly 1.5 miles long and taller than the Washington Monument, was strategically placed on the Yangtze River in China’s Hubei province to control flooding and generate electricity to power the country’s rapid industrialization. Due to the record deluge of rainfall, the world’s largest hydroelectric dam, which has a volume of 39.3 billion cubic meters, is at risk of breaking, which would kill or displace millions, flood China’s cradle of manufacturing, and create massive disruptions in the global supply chain. Many highly populated cities have already seen historic flooding. As an early indicator, the global supply of personal protective equipment, needed to contain a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, has been delayed by weeks, Reuters reported. The integrity of that supply chain is already precariously unstable due to a legion of disasters emanating from China in 2020. Foremost of these was the appearance and global spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. China did not react quickly to contain the pathogen and allowed 5 million people to leave Wuhan, the coronavirus epicenter, prior to the mandated quarantine. The pandemic has reportedly killed an estimated 652,000 people globally, with 150,000 in the United States. The full impact on global economies and health is immeasurable. The dam is upstream of major manufacturing hubs Wuhan and Jiujiang, along with Shanghai 1,000 miles farther down at the coast. Flooding has already caused immense devastation. The U.S. is also at odds with China due to grievances ranging from intellectual property theft to human rights abuses. Mike Pompeo, U.S. Secretary of State, aired these grievances against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in an incendiary speech on July 24 from the Nixon Library: “We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation,” Pompeo said, recalling the idealized relations President Richard Nixon envisioned when he first visited the country in 1972. “But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. “We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang,” he continued. “We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in Southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.” On July 25, the U.S. ordered the Chinese Consulate General in Houston to close after becoming convinced the building served as the headquarters for a Chinese-sponsored espionage ring. Earlier in the week it was reported that the Chinese were burning papers outside of the consulate. The U.S. trucking sector should follow these events closely, as changes may occur rapidly that transform the nature of the trucking business. In the short term, disaster relief supplies and food may need to be expedited to China as millions of hectares of crops have already become inundated. And while trucks and equipment are built in North America, parts and materials are sourced from China, and many automotive factories are downstream from the dam. In the near future, there may be some difficulty getting those parts. It’s also extremely difficult to get any substantial facts out of China concerning the flooding. The BBC reported on July 23 that 150 had died. On July 5, Reuters said that 130 had died. Between July 5 and 23, severe flooding ravaged the countryside, with the Three Gorges floodgates opening up to prevent overflow. An estimated 38 million people were displaced, and 28,000 homes were destroyed, so the low death count should be met with some skepticism. According to Radio Free Asia, “Chongqing police have issued an emergency warning that anyone found to have posted news of the flooding online in an ‘irresponsible’ manner will be immediately detained.” In his speech, Pompeo alluded to China’s reluctance for transparency: “President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of ‘trust but verify.’ When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify.” On July 21, the People’s Republic of China’s state-run press outlet revealed the dam had become “deformed slightly.” Youtube videos seem to indicate the problem is much worse. If they have not already done so, trucking companies should immediately find out how these events will impact their business so they can react appropriately. In the long term, the trucking industry may see more business due to manufacturing companies returning to America. "I think the transportation sector in America will see a boost," said Rosemary Coates, executive director of the Reshoring Institute. "There's no question in my mind that companies are considering reshoring and bringing manufacturing back." She acknowledged both President Trump and the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, Joe Biden, have platforms based around the "Made in America" movement, though neither has released detailed strategies yet. "No matter who is elected, I think there's a general sentiment to move manufacturing back to the U.S.," she said. Coates previously worked in China to develop factories there, as well as move them back to America when economically viable. Some factors working against a wholesale abandonment of China include losing machine tools that are now part of the CCP's infrastructure. "Tools and dies become part of Chinese infrastructure," she said. "I've had to have some hard conversations with CFOs and tell them, 'You’re never going to get those tools and dies back; You’re going t have to write them off.'" Paying Chinese workers' employment contracts off, as well as creating new global competitors also factor into the decision. "If you decide to leave, they’re not going to forget how to make your product," Coates said. "Natural disasters are something that we need to pay attention to, but I think in the longer term it is probably not going to affect much of anything," Coates said of the recent flooding in China. The dam breaking would alter that, though. "If the Three Gorges dam broke, it would be horrendous for sure," she said. "Terrible loss of life and terrible flooding."Earthquakes ImpactEarthquakes Impact---2NCEffective BoR is key to earthquake monitoring via strong-motion devices---early warning generates resiliency.Wood et. al 01 – Chris Wood, Andy Viksne, Jon Ake, and David Copeland worked with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in the Geophysics, paleohydrology, and seismotectonics group for the technical service center, “CURRENT STATUS OF STRONG-MOTION MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION AT THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION”, Strong Motion Instrumentation for Civil Engineering Structures (2001) pp 331-341Data obtained from strong-motion recording devices can address two basic needs, one short-term and one long-term. The short-term need is to provide rapid notification of strong-ground shaking, which enhances public safety by providing a rational basis for inspection and/or remedial actions at structures that have been subjected to earthquake loading. The long-term need is to expand the empirical data base of ground-motion recordings that can be used in the analysis and design of critical structures, both existing and proposed. This paper will focus on describing the current state of the strong-motion recording program at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation within this framework.Recording of strong-motion earthquake data at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began with the installation of three strong-motion accelerographs at Hoover Dam in 1937. Between 1937 and 1971 strong-motion monitoring progressed slowly, with instruments installed at only six additional sites. The 1971 M 6.6 San Fernando earthquake and the resulting failure of Van Norman Dam, lead to recognition of the need for enhanced understanding of dam response to strong earthquake loading. Clearly one of the first steps required in that process was the acquisition of strong-motion data. Thus, Reclamation initiated a program of upgrading existing instrumentation as well as adding new strong motion systems, focusing especially on critical structures located in seismically active areas.At the present time the Reclamation Strong Motion Program operates 180 digital and analog systems at 69 critical water resources lifeline structures, including dams, powerplants, pumping plants and pipelines. Currently 49 of these sites are instrumented with digital accelerographs (Figure 1).Earthquakes destroy undersea cables.Jun Murai 20, Dean of API’s Institute of Geoeconomic Studies and a senior fellow at API. He is also a professor at Keio University and a co-director of Keio University’s Cyber Civilization Research Center, "Undersea internet cables offer more resilient connection," Japan Times, 11/24/2020, the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, laying undersea cables to establish a telegraph communication network for the British Empire was a major geopolitical policy.Vast submarine telegraph cables were put in place, including one running westward from the U.K. under the Atlantic Ocean, one between the U.K. and France, and one stretching southward around Africa and eventually reaching Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.In the 21st century, the undersea cables were replaced with fiber optic wires, and the network’s main role changed to distribution of digital data via the internet.The operating principle of the internet is that if a path for traffic in a network is not available, another path is automatically selected. This means that the predominance of a model in which a country possesses and protects undersea cables connecting two points is lost.Therefore, the issue has shifted completely to the geoeconomic question of governments and the private sector cooperating to consider how the cables should be laid on ocean floors for the benefits of people and society.Proper functioning of the internet is vital for the global community as a whole, and how to keep it going is an important matter of policy for governments.The internet can be described as a network of blood vessels that maintains the health of global society, and submarine cables are the arteries.New undersea cables to JapanA joint venture between Finnish infrastructure operator Cinia and Russian telecommunications company MegaFon finished the first stage of offshore surveys earlier this year as part of their Arctic Connect project, which aims to build a 138,000-kilometer subsea telecommunications link that connects the coastal areas of Northern Europe with Japan.On July 6, California-based Ram Telecom International Inc. announced the completion of the Japan-Guam-Australia cable system that links Guam and Japan with the aim of making the former a new network hub in the western Pacific.Guam would become a completely new hub in the region, as cables in the western Pacific are currently concentrated in the South China Sea.Subsea cables are crucial, with fiber optic wires carrying more than 90% of all the data currently exchanged worldwide via the internet.The Federal Communications Commission in the United States has estimated that only 0.37% of the country’s international data traffic is carried by satellite, indicating that almost all of the digital data on the internet is transmitted globally through submarine cables.Mobile telecommunications networks — including 5G — function like a capillary network, providing internet access to every corner of the world.Satellite communication, despite having much less bandwidth than fiber optic communication, can cover vast surface areas of the Earth since it uses a propagation path from space.But because stationary satellites are lined up some 36,000 km above the equator, their signals weaken significantly near the north and south poles due to atmospheric effects as their elevation angle becomes low.The melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean due to climate change is enabling undersea cables to be laid in the area, a development that is epoch-making in the sense that the project can provide high-speed communication to people living in the Arctic region for the first time.This year, there are some 400 undersea cables worldwide. They are laid and jointly owned by a variety of business entities, including submarine cable operators, telephone companies and providers of over-the-top video or streaming media services offered via the internet, such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google.The internet, which is based on an autonomous distribution system that makes it possible to route around damage by finding alternative paths if something bad happens in a network, has a high affinity with submarine cables built redundantly and spreading all over.The internet makes good use of such undersea cables, meaning the cables symbolize the arteries and the core of the internet, which has a mission of guaranteeing access no matter what.Brand new network topologyAccording to Weathernews Inc. which conducts consistent studies of trends in Arctic sea ice using its own methods, the total area of sea ice in the region has declined by approximately 3 million square kilometers compared with two decades ago.In response to such climate change in the Arctic, Canadian cable builder Arctic Fibre came up with a plan in 2011 to send an expedition to the Northwest Passage to conduct offshore surveys to lay undersea fiber optics on a northbound route linking the U.K., Canada, Alaska and Japan.When I was consulted about the plan, I recognized that both the fear of global warming melting ice in the Arctic and the dream of a completely new network being created are both coming true simultaneously.At that time, all internet connections between Japan and Europe went through cables that ran underneath the Pacific Ocean, crossing the American continent and reaching the U.K. via the Atlantic Ocean.While cables that cross continents inherently contain security risks, submarine cables are relatively safe and free arteries.Calculations show that undersea cables have various advantages regarding latency as well.In particular, the route that branches off at the south of the Bering Sea — the gateway between the Arctic and the Pacific — and links Seattle and Hokkaido makes Japan’s northernmost prefecture the closest Japanese location to New York, making it attractive for the finance industry.At the end of last year, I was asked by a friend in NORDUnet — a research and education network of the five Nordic countries — to cooperate in making a new plan to link northern Europe and Japan using Cinia’s cables.If realized, cables will run from northern Europe through the Bering Sea, diverge to the U.S., Tokyo and Tomakomai, Hokkaido, cross the Tsugaru Strait and land in Vladivostok, Russia.Previously, most of the cables running across the Atlantic landed in the U.K. But following Brexit, an increasing number of projects are planned to lay cables to reach areas in the European Union, such as Marseille, France. The Nordic nations’ project is apparently in line with such trends.Undersea cables and cybersecurityWhile submarine cables are a relatively safe and free network, cables crossing continents can be affected by nations’ policies.The latest cables will provide a completely new artery in the north for telecommunications connecting the EU to Japan and Asia, which are currently dependent on cables crossing over the American continent or Russia.Submarine cables are made up of optic fibers, protective covers and electrical cables that transmit electricity to amplifiers to boost weakened signals. The protective covers give security against being bitten through by sharks, for pared to electrical signals used in the past, fiber optic communications are much more difficult to tap, which means there is less of a security risk of undersea cables being compromised.On the other hand, because undersea cables’ signals and electric power transmissions fluctuate due to external factors, close measurements of such fluctuations are sometimes used as seabed sensors to detect fish and submarines.Undersea cables are also actively used as sensors to measure sea floor movements, especially earthquakes and undersea volcanoes.The most dangerous risk for such cables is for them to be cut, which can occur as a result of trawling, the raising or dragging of anchors, undersea construction, sand dredging, earthquakes and undersea landslides.In order to safeguard against such man-made and natural hazards, the laying of undersea cables is managed by the International Cable Protection Committee, which covers 97% of the cables in the world’s oceans.Linking Japan and AsiaMost of the cables connecting Japan and other Asian countries are concentrated in the sea south of Taiwan, and statistics show that undersea cable failures occurred in this area once a week on average since 2005.Such cases are rising every year, indicating that failures in submarine cable systems are increasingly caused by factors other than natural disasters such as earthquakes.Extinction---internet disruptions trigger armed conflicts.Alexander Bennett 19, JD Candidate at Seton Hall University, MPA from Farleigh Dickinson University, Former Engineering Intern at Massimo Zanetti Beverage Co., BA in Political Science from Farleigh Dickinson University, “Submarine Cables and Infrastructure Vulnerabilities: Threats from Private and State Actors”, experts estimate that the daily traffic of financial institutions which flows over the undersea cable has a valuation of well over $1 trillion dollars. Global banking, stock exchange, and other commodity markets traded over the internet are gravely affected by any disruption. A good way to measure and appreciate the detriment which these interruptions cause is to examine times in which inadvertent interruptions took place. In December 2006 an earthquake damaged 9 undersea cables near Taiwan. The repair took approximately 49 days to be completed by several teams of ships. Chunghwa Telecom, which is one of Taiwan’s largest telecom companies reported outages of 100 percent of its communications into Hong Kong and a 74 percent interruption in communications to China. The two largest internet providers in China reported about 90 percent outages on all internet traffic flowing from China to the United States and Europe. 18The damages which have occurred to undersea cables up to today have been the result of natural disaster or human error. Many cables are damaged each year by things such as anchors dropped or dragged by ships and fishing nets which are trawled along the ocean floor to catch fish.19 Additionally in an effort to minimize the unintentional damage from commercial practices like fishing, the locations of cables are publicly available information20(See also; Exhibits B and C). The reason for releasing this information is so that vessels traversing the ocean are aware of the locations and avoid damaging the cables, yet by making this information public it could potentially be used for other means.V. International CoalitionsThe International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) is an organization devoted to the preservation of undersea cables and provides leadership and guidance on issues related to undersea cable security and reliability. 21 The committee has membership with countless companies and governments across the globe, with members including the United States Navy, JP Morgan Chase, Sprint, AT&T and over 170 other organizations. Through their research, the ICPC has been able to place a dollar value on the cost of outages across undersea cables. They estimate that any single high-bandwidth undersea cable suffering an outage can cost companies and governments about 1.5 million dollars in revenue for every hour that the outage continues. 22VI. Attack ProbabilityThere is potential for terrorist organizations or even state actors to wage an attack on the undersea cable network for a variety of reasons. This potential for attack or damage is evidenced by past events in which malicious damage was done to undersea cables. In 2007, following a provincial decree by the Vietnamese government, several fishing companies were granted permission to salvage undersea copper cables which were laid prior to 1975 and were no longer in use. 23 In excess of the specific permission granted to gather the defunct cables the fishing trawlers also pulled up 27 miles of fiber optic cables used to transmit internet traffic between Vietnam, Thailand, and Hong Kong. 24 The cables were owned by a private Singaporean telecommunication company which had to replace the stolen lengths of cable at an estimated cost of 5.8 million dollars. This cost was the amount needed to physically replace the cable and did not include the amount of money being lost through the decreased or disrupted internet traffic caused by this cable theft. The perpetrators of this theft were not prosecuted due to lacking international agreement and treaties regarding such damage. This example of failure to prosecute crimes carried out against privately owned internet cables are representative of the problem which prompted the writing of this position paper. It is my position that governments should come together in an international treaty, like NATO, and design a framework to prosecute criminals who seek to damage undersea cables. The international community has done little to address these concerns and rather sits in wait for a major terror or state-initiated incident to occur.VII. Parallels to Piracy in International LawWe will now examine how the crime of piracy is handled by international, maritime, and United States law and make an argument for the meddling and destruction of undersea cables to be protected under the same type of laws. In the United States the crime of piracy is addressed within the United States Constitution itself, in Article I §8 Cl. 10: “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”. 25 Those seeking to commit bad acts or destruction against undersea cables are committing such acts “on the high seas” which would also fall into the category of “[f]elonies”. Article I §8 established the enumerated powers bestowed upon congress so that they may provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States. Congress, in 1948 enacted into the U.S. Code entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedure” the following: “[w]hoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life”. 26Under international law it is acknowledged by the United Nations that piracy is executed with the intent to deprive people of property and interrupt activities of commerce. 27 Additionally the motivation for preventing and criminalizing piracy is similar- economics. The economical difficulties posed by pirates is dwarfed in comparison to the disruptions which could potentially result from internet connections being destroyed. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines and proscribes procedures for nations to combat piracy. In UNCLOS Article 105 the UN authorizes the military or governmental ships of any state or nation to arrest pirates and seize their vessels if found outside of the waters of any nation (international waters). 28 Further the UNCLOS states that the nation which has arrested and seized pirates is able to decide the punishment for those captured. 29 Within the same UNCLOS the United Nations addresses undersea cables in the sense that they may be laid by nations in international water and that nations are permitted to repair and maintain these international cables, yet no protection or prosecutorial procedures (like those for piracy) are set forth. Based upon the time periods in which laws regarding piracy were created in the United States it is probable that, had they had the insight, drafters of those laws would have included undersea cables in a protected class against harmful behaviors. Piracy laws are aimed to protect private ships which are defenseless for the most part and whose importance to the world economy was evident. There is virtually no difference; the cables are privately owned and deliver billions if not trillions to the national and world economy every day through transactions.VIII. Maritime SovereigntyThe ocean is separated into different sections, or zones, based upon the distance from a nation’s shoreline. The first zone is known as territorial waters and extends up to 12 nautical miles from the shore of the nation. The contiguous zone stretches another 12 miles further out beyond the territorial zone. The third zone is known as the exclusive economic zone and reaches outward from shores to a maximum of 200 nautical miles. Anything beyond the 200-nautical mile point is considered the high seas, also known as international waters. The zone within economic control is miniscule when considering the long distances which exist between nations, the distances which intercontinental cables must traverse. It is for this reason that most of the undersea cable components will be found in international waters and outside of the control of individual countries. For example, the Coast Guard of the United States is responsible for patrolling the entire exclusive economic zone of the United States which is 4.5 million miles square, larger even than the United States which, itself, measures only 3.7 million miles square. 3031 The patrol and security of the coastlines of many countries will likely deter terrorists and other bad actors from engaging in attacks in those areas closest to shore but there is plenty of space which frankly cannot be guarded. Therefore, given the fact that the cables run mostly in international waters, combined with the fact that offenses against them are more likely to take place outside of the jurisdiction of any nation, would suggest the fact that there should be an international body responsible for promulgating legislation to punish those who destroy the cables.IX. Prosecuting Piracy and why it Should be Applied to Undersea CablesThe punishments for terrorists and other actors who destroy cables should be modeled after those set forth in the United States Code. The code for piracy was challenged in the court case United States v. Said in which the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ultimately ruled that life imprisonment for piracy under U.S.C. §1651 was not in violation of the eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The court below in Said ruled on the trial of a group of seven Somalian pirates for illegally boarding another vessel. 32 The pirates in that case were convicted under §1651 yet the court for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to impose the mandatory life sentence attached to the statute because they interpreted it as a violation of the 8th Amendment. 33 The lack of international attention on undersea cables means that people who destroy the cables may have a lesser chance of being prosecuted by individual countries. There should be a UN- backed agreement which places penalties on destruction or attempted destruction of the undersea cables. The importance of this type of law will be exemplified further in the rest of this paper. In most cases the individual terrorist or even terrorist organization will lack resources and technology to carry out attacks where the cables are most vulnerable.The vulnerable parts of the deep sea cables are most open to attack from another agressor- state actors. In the last year major developments have occurred in the threat to internet cables by state actors, particularly Russia.X. Russian and the Threat to Undersea Cables and the InternetSince the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has had difficulty in establishing a strong set of armed force branches. In recent years the totalitarian power has begun increases in activity to grow its naval force and has vowed to have the second largest navy by 2027. See Exhibit D for an example of the military expenditures as percentage of the GDPs of Russia contrasted with the United States from 1991 (fall of the USSR) until 2016. As of 2016 Russia spent 5.39 percent of their GDP on military expenditures up from a low of 2.9 percent in 1998, while the United States closely outpaced Russian with 3.0 percent in 1998 the US has only spent 3.28 percent in 2016.34 Additionally, with the uptick in military growth for Russia, has been an increased interest in alternative forms of warfare being explored by the Federation.On March 15, 2018 new threats to internet security were made apparent in a release by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US- CERT) which is a division within the Department of Homeland Security. The theme of this release titled: “US- CERT Alert TA18- 074A” outlines the national security threat to infrastructure targets by foreign governments, specifically Russia. The report states that since March of 2016 Russians have been intentionally targeting the infrastructure systems of the United States in an apparent effort to destroy, infiltrate, influence, or disrupt the operation of these systems. 35 In an article from December 2017 the Washington Post reported that Russian submarines were discovered conducting exploration and activity in the North Atlantic Ocean. The activities of these submarines was specifically close to the undersea cables in that region. According to senior US military officials the Russian exercises are “part of a more aggressive naval posture that has driven NATO to revive a Cold War-era command”. 36 The focus of the submarines was evident to be connected with the data lines in the region which can be destructed or in certain circumstances “hacked” in order to intercept data while not necessarily interrupting connectivity. 37 In response to this suspicious activity by Russia the allies of NATO have begun planning and moving towards bolstering defensive measures which have not been seen since the cold war. 38 These measures include increasing the amount of NATO Commands, increasing personnel, and other defensive measures. NATO plans to increase the amount of submarine detection planes which can be an early alert system to submarine activities and also plan to increase anti-submarine defense systems. The Russian government has sparked a renewed interest in their own naval forces by revamping 13 Cold-War-era submarines beginning in 2014 which has brought the number of their active submarines to 60 compared to the United States’ 66 active submarines. 39 Along with this renewal of the Russian Navy was the transformation of an older ballistic submarine into what can essentially be referred to as a underwater carrier with the ability to carry other smaller submarines all the way to the ocean floor. 40 These smaller subs at such depths pose a tangible threat to undersea cables more so than the terrorist organizations who may not have financing or equipment to reach those depths. At these depths it is predicted that Russian will either be able to cut or at the very least monitor and surveil American and NATO internet communications for information gathering purposes.In the US-CERT Alert it details how Russian “threat actors” implement various forms of internet hacks to infiltrate US systems, specifically systems of infrastructure. The CERT defines two separate types of targets, there are staging targets and intended targets, with the staging targets acting as a sort of doorway or threshold leading to the true intended targets. These two types of targets are identical to the relationship between the privately-owned companies which maintain the undersea cables and the intended targets- the American people. In the CERT documents it is explained that staging targets usually have a long pre-existing relationship with the intended targets of the threat actors. The staging targets are mostly organizations (private) with relatively softer lines of cyber defense when compared to the harder intended targets and therefore are easier to be compromised. 41 The threat actors would compromise the staging targets systems by using schemes such as “spear phising”42 in order to gain user credentials which are then paired with a password (obtained by cracking software) in order to enter a system disguised as a normal and authorized user. At one point the DHS was able to retrieve a screenshot of what the hackers saw on their end of the process, the image was that of a control program for what electrical power plant operators use to run machinery in the power plants. See Exhibit A. By using this control program, the infiltrators could shut off or damage systems used for power generation, manufacturing, nuclear and water energy, and aviation. 43 As noted earlier the internet cables in the ocean are owned, operated, and maintained by private companies which may be more susceptible to infiltration just like the staging targets outlined in the CERT alert.Michael Sechrist of the Harvard University Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs stated that the worst case scenario for a hack of the internet cables could be the following:What is the nightmare scenario? A hacker penetrates a cable management system, gains administrative rights, and hacks into the presentation server. Presentation servers can host webbased [sic] applications for numerous cable operators and handle management system data for multiple cable systems. Hacking into a presentation server can therefore provide attackers with access to control of multiple cable management systems. Hackers could then attain unprecedented toplevel [sic] views of multiple cable networks and data flows, discover physical cable vulnerabilities, and disrupt and divert data traffic. With that access, hackers/attackers can gain a potential “kill click” – with a click of a mouse they can delete wavelengths and, potentially, significantly disrupt or alter global Internet traffic routes.This nightmare scenario is all too realistic as the companies which operate the undersea cables use commonplace operating systems like Linux and Windows.44 The network management systems which these companies use enable them to remotely control entire cables from a remote location at the company. These connectivity possibilities make maintaining the lines and gathering information about the cables very convenient, yet the connections are also vulnerable to virtual hijacking in a scenario as described above by Mr. Sechrist. 45XI. International Law, the Law of War, and International Humanitarian LawWhether their motive is information mining or to attack infrastructures it is evident that the preventative NATO measures being planned are paramount to the ongoing threat to the cables. The threat by Russian activities is also an unexplored area of law for the most part. The term “cyber warfare” is relatively new and also very ambiguous as it relates to attacks by one country on another. The International Humanitarian Law (“IHL”) “applies to cyber operations occurring during […] or triggering[…] an armed conflict. However, determining the beginning of an armed conflict remains tricky in situations[…] short of any kinetic use of force.” 46 So basically, given the present-day principles of IHL, a country can launch a cyber-attack such as interrupting infrastructure communications without maintaining a physical presence in the victim nation thus not implicating the traditional “Laws of War”.The Laws of War are part of international law that include s provisions to regulate the appropriate and justifiable reasons to engage in war between states (jus ad bellum) and the acceptable conduct during war (jus in bello). 47 The goals of these laws of war as part of the larger picture of IHL, which aim to limit the suffering caused by armed conflict between nation states. Yet cyber-attack falls outside of the traditional definition of war and therefore needs to be addressed on the international level. This uncertainty leaves many openings for very damaging attacks to occur without invoking consequences on the perpetrators.The difficulty in defining cyber hacking and attacks as warfare is because traditional warfare takes place in some physical space while “cyberspace” is a virtual space. This difference causes a disconnect in the evaluation of such cyber-attacks. The ICRC discusses the various elements of newly emerging cyber aggression and posits that “[t]he effects of such ‘bloodless’ attacks could obviously be severe – for instance, if power or water supplies were to be interrupted or if a banking system were to be taken down.”48 It is this leap, from the virtual actions of foreign nations, to the physical world of a country across an ocean that has lawmakers and governments not sure how to define this new type of aggression. It is the position of this paper that such attacks on infrastructure, whether it be internet or a power grid, is a deliberate act of war by another country. This does not mean that every time a foreign country is found to have hacked the United States that war drums should sound, yet it is strongly advisable that the US respond proportionally to such threats to deter escalation. Another major threat of attacks on infrastructure like the undersea cables, both physically or virtually, is the risk of what are known as “indiscriminate attacks”. The indiscriminate attacks in the traditional sense are violations of IHL. The International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands issued an advisory opinion in 1996 regarding the legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons in which the court discussed indiscriminate attacks. The ICJ serves as the principal judicial organ of the UN and its purpose is to “settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”49Although the opinion is about nuclear weapons the same principles to the indiscriminate nature of cyber-attack, the ICJ says weapons are prohibited “because of their indiscriminate effect on combatants and civilians.”50 Cyber weapons should be placed in this same category because attacks on infrastructure will not be limited to military installation and the accuracy of such attacks is similar to explosives in that there is peripheral damage to civilians. This peripheral damage example is strongly exemplified by the ICRC’s Report: ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2015. It states:Most military networks rely on civilian cyber infrastructure, such as undersea [fiber]- optic cables, satellites, routers or nodes. Conversely, civilian vehicles, shipping, and air traffic controls are increasingly equipped with navigation systems that rely on global positioning system (GPS) satellites, which are also used by the military. Civilian logistical supply chains (for food and medical supplies) and other businesses use the same web and communication networks through which some military communications pass. Thus, it is to a large extent impossible to differentiate between purely civilian and purely military cyber infrastructures.51ConclusionThe connectivity of the entire globe relies on about 400 garden-hose-size cables stretching thousands of miles. The cables, which could at any time be severed and disrupted by various bad actors, as very vulnerable. Most alarming is that strong evidence points toward a Russian initiative to bolster their military power, seek alternative non-physical forms of attacks and to mask responsibility for hacking type attacks. These indicators also point toward a vulnerability of the undersea internet cables being attacked by Russia in order to limit or cut out communication within the United States and also between the United States and its allies. The days of traditional kinetic projectile warfare have not yet gone by the wayside, yet, they are slowly taking on a secondary spot in the arsenals of advanced nations. During Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the tri-state felt the effects of having power cut off. In some places power was extinguished for over a week’s time and we saw the fabric of society begin to stretch thin with lines at gas stations, bare shelves at supermarkets, and a general panic of the public. The effects of an infrastructure attack through soft internet targets under the ocean could lead to this very same discord on a much larger scale.Earthquakes Impact---Turns CaseIndependently, earthquakes categorically raise the risk of longer-timeframe threats---empirics.Baum 20 – Seth Baum is an American researcher involved in the field of risk research. He is the executive director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, a think tank focused on existential risk, “Quantifying the Probability of Existential Catastrophe: A Reply to Beard et al.”, Futures, vol. 123 (October 2020), article 102608, DOI 10.1016/ j. futures.2020.102608Additionally, fast catastrophes could also affect slow catastrophes. For example, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, has prompted a shift from nuclear power to fossil fuels, thereby worsening climate change (Srinivasan and Rethinaraj 2013). While the Tōhoku-Fukushima event was only a local catastrophe, the episode is nonetheless indicative of potential impacts of fast catastrophes on slow catastrophes.And they’ll split the earth in two!Moynihan 18 – Thomas Moynihan is a doctor of philosophy in English @ Oriel College, “THE INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY OF HUMAN EXTINCTION EXISTENTIAL RISK AND THE ENTRANCE OF THE FUTURE PERFECT INTO SCIENCE”, Oriel College, 2018, online @ 1805, Cuvier pondered upon the fact that “[o]nly about 1/1,600 of the diameter of the earth has as yet been penetrated” [2008; 85]. Following this realization, Schopenhauer decreed that predicating the “planetary system” as “organism” is “absolutely inadmissible” [1969; ii.296-7]; the biosphere, he noted, is merely a “mouldy film” on the surface [1969; ii.3]. Being able to articulate this, however, was historically novel. This is of vital importance to the story of X-risk awareness because it demonstrates a necessary cultural-philosophical migration from presumption of the infinite mutual inclusivity of mind and nature (and theconcomitant expulsion of death from ontology) towards a more mature acceptance of ‘depth’ (both extra-terrestrial and subterranean) as an excluding medium of inorganic sterility. We trace this migration through the ‘physics’ of PBS’s poetic world-models, delineating a shift from feting our security within the “immense concave” [DotW, ll.143] of “Nature’s utmost sphere” [‘To Constantia’, ll.3], toward instead envisioning “earthquakes cracking from the centre up / And splitting the great globe like brittle ice” [2010; iii.13-4].Don’t roll the dice on the variance of future earthquakes---the rate of higher-magnitude quakes is statistically rising.Pielke 20 – Roger A. Pielke Jr. is an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, “Catastrophes of the 21st Century”, available online @ is a significant amount of variability in the occurrence of extreme events. On human time scales such variability may represent itself as an apparent trend of increasing or decreasing events. Consider earthquakes. The graphs below show the long-term global death rate from earthquakes since 1900 (left) and since 1990 (right), data from Daniell et al. (2011). Depending on your time frame you can legitimately argue that earthquake impacts are getting better (since 1900) or getting worse (since 1990).The data show a longer-term decline, but a more recent increase in catastrophe losses, measured as lives lost. These impact trends are consistent with trends (or variability if you prefer) in earthquake incidence. The figure below shows the incidence of earthquakes greater than certain thresholds since 1900. (Ben-Naim et al. 2013). The authors conclude that “Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014.”So it seems clear that the world is in a recent period of increased earthquake activity. But does that mean that earthquakes are increasing? Or is it that we are having a run of bad luck? Experts debate such questions, and the literature includes arguments on both sides. However, one comes out on that debate, it also seems clear that to date, there is little evidence of any ability to skillfully anticipate global earthquake activity on decision making time scales. Further, irrespective of robust understandings of earthquake rates, knowledge of how to reduce their impacts when they do occur is well known, and is largely independent of incidence rates (Tucker, 2004).Earthquakes Impact---Turns EconA future earthquake will destroy the economy.Pielke 20 – Roger A. Pielke Jr. is an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, “Catastrophes of the 21st Century”, available online @ take one example, Vranes and Pielke (2009) looked at earthquakes of the United States from 1900 to 2005 and normalized their impacts to 2005 values. That is, the economic and causalities of past events were estimated for 2005 based on changing patterns of development and population. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the most damaging normalized US earthquake, normalized to 2005 values results in economic losses, on the high end, of more than $600 billion and more than 24,000 fatalities. This normalization is highly sensitive to assumptions, of course, but it does not require unreasonable assumptions to arrive at an estimate of a $1 trillion loss from such a quake (in 2015 dollars) were it to occur during the 21st century. One could envision a similar scenario for Tokyo, Istanbul, Manila, Delhi and other mega-cities around the world (Tucker, 2004).Wildfires ImpactWildfires Impact---2NCNew BoR projects are dedicated towards preventing wildfires Mary Lee Knecht 21, Public Affairs Officers @ the Bureau of Reclamation. " Reclamation announces project to reduce wildfire threats in Auburn State Recreation Area in El Dorado County," BOR, 7-2-2021, , // [nayak]AUBURN, Calif. - The Bureau of Reclamation, in partnership with California Conservation Corps and the Cool-Pilot Hill Fire Safe Council, began work on June 21 to reduce wildfire threats by creating a shaded fuel break between Auburn State Recreation Area and the Northside Elementary School in Cool, a small unincorporated community in El Dorado County. A shaded fuel break is created by cutting and trimming larger woody shrubs and smaller trees and chipping that material on site.Reclamation’s ongoing partnership with the CCC Placer Center is dedicated to shaded fuel break work on federal lands adjacent to the urban interface where county development has occurred, and community Fire Safe Councils are recognized. Towns, neighborhood communities, and other infrastructure adjacent to the Auburn State Recreation Area are evaluated for fire prevention and protection, environmental conservation, land maintenance, and emergency response to natural disasters. This shaded fuel break project is managed and administered by Reclamation; project activities are performed by CCC crew members.The goal of a shaded fuel break is to reduce the intensity of a potential wildfire moving through an area by decreasing the amount of vegetation that could burn. By thinning out the undergrowth, it helps keep the fire from moving quickly into the trees. Such shaded fuel breaks help slow fires from advancing and provides a safety zone where fire crews, engines, and aircraft can access and suppress a fire.Current shaded fuel break work next to the Northside Elementary School will enhance fire prevention outreach for the Cool-Pilot Hill Fire Safe Council. Local businesses are discussing this project as “Cool Means Business” with visitors. Business owners are further explaining the importance of fire prevention and potential impacts or threats of wildland fire, while protecting natural and cultural resources and improving the safety for the residents of El Dorado County.ExtinctionPeter Kareiva & Valerie Carranza 18, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, “Existential Risk Due to Ecosystem Collapse: Nature Strikes Back,” Futures, vol. 102, 09/01/2018, pp. 39–50 The notion of existential catastrophes that either end the world or destroy civilization can be traced back to some of the earliest flood myths, including the Epic of Gilgamesh and the great flood in the Book of Genesis. Christian tradition foresees Armageddon as a final spiritual reckoning, or a battle between God and the armies of unrepentant sinners. In more recent times, the possibility of an apocalyptic future for humanity has been linked to over-population and exceeding the world’s food supply. Thomas Malthus is credited with best articulating a future of global famine, when he wrote in 1798, “the power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race” (Malthus, 2003). But it is only within the last fifty years that scenarios of global or regional collapse have been scientifically linked to our understanding of ecology and ecosystem science. Whereas Malthus foresaw collapse due to a simple shortage of food, advances in ecology have made it clear that disruptions of ecological processes, or unforeseen impacts of pollution on human health, pose threats to our existence. Rachel Carson’s pioneering book, Silent Spring, documented massive declines in bird populations associated with DDT and raised the specter of threatened human health, thereby ushering in the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and an effective regulatory response to air and water pollution. Many parts of the world have now cleaned up their air and water (Butt et al 2017; Garmo et al 2014), and it is clear we have the technology to do so everywhere if there is sufficient political will and funding. But recently subtler and more pervasive existential threats have emerged for the world’s ecosystem. One risk is the “extinction crisis” or “sixth great extinction” being driven by man (Barnosky et al., 2011). Here the threat is that if we lose too much biodiversity, essential ecological processes will be undermined to such an extent that our food and water supplies could be interrupted, natural hazards and epidemics exacerbated, climate regulation disturbed, and the fertility of soil reduced (Díaz et al., 2006). The biodiversity crisis is one dimension of a more comprehensive view of our planet, which hypothesizes the presence of several physical and ecological boundaries that, if exceeded, put at risk our civilization (Rockstr?m et al., 2009). These planetary boundaries are defined by limits to: land-use change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen removed for human use, phosphorous cycle disruption, freshwater use, atmospheric aerosol loading, chemical pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, and ozone depletion (Rockstr?m et al., 2009) While there is no doubt that the future scenarios sketched by Malthus, Rachel Carson, and Rockstr?m, among many other environmental visionaries, could yield unacceptable environmental degradation, it is not clear what environmental pathways would be catastrophic in the existential sense of ending civilization as we know it—either regionally or globally. We focus in this article on identifying those ecological scenarios that we can imagine producing apocalyptic havoc. Before examining the science it is worth reflecting on the end-of-world futures that have captured the imagination of popular culture. 2. What does popular culture tell us about environmental catastrophes and existential risk? Popular culture can often provide insight into a generation’s socio-political concerns, fears, and anxieties (Jones et al., 2011). Films depicting global catastrophes and apocalyptic scenarios have been around for decades, and involve a wide range scenarios, from Earth-dominating aliens, robots destroying mankind, to famine-ridden worlds. Disaster films also include themes about environmental collapses which can include a future world with rising sea levels (e.g. Waterworld), extreme climatic events (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow), or chemical or radioactive contamination (e.g. The China Syndrome). Culture, technology, and science do not occupy separate worlds— indeed it is the entanglement of these human endeavors that shape both the future, and our response to potential existential risks (Latour, 2011). For that reason there is merit in examining popular culture and its rendition of eco-catastrophes. 2.1. Methodology to explore the most successful films about catastrophe To systematically examine Hollywood’s vision of epic disasters and environmental Armageddon, we analyzed the highest grossing films between 1956 to 2016. We selected this interval to capture films both before and after the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (published in 1962), which was a watershed moment in American environmentalism. We identified the highest grossing films per year and flagged each of those popular films that fell into either of two main categories: environmental collapse or disaster. We made a distinction between disaster films and environmental collapse films to separate apocalyptic events due to technology run amok, alien invasions, earthquakes, etc. from apocalyptic futures due to human inflicted damage to the environment that comes back to harm humans. Obviously an “alien invasion” damages the environment, but it does not happen because of a disregard for maintaining a healthy environment. In most (all but 4 of 60) years, our “top grossing” category represented a top twenty list. 2.2. Major themes in disaster and environmental collapse films Since 1956, there have been ten apocalyptic films with an environmental theme that qualify as top box-office hits. Prior to 1956 we could not identify any popular environmentally-themed catastrophe films. In fact, all ten of the top-grossing environmental films appeared after 1975 and hence after the emergence of a strong environmental movement in the US; there is a hint of an increase in their frequency through time (Fig.1a). In contrast, the fifty-nine top-grossing disaster films span the entire 1956 to 2016 interval (Fig.1b), and we know of several disaster films that were popular successes long before 1956, although box office data were less reliable. For example, a huge hit with audiences in 1916 entitled The End of the World, had as its cause a comet that passed too close to the planet and showered fiery sparks down upon people creating social unrest and earthbound natural disasters. The film Deluge in 1933 was a Hollywood success that depicted worldwide natural disasters in the form of days of unending earthquakes. Modern films portraying end-of-civilization scale disasters include alien invasions, plagues caused by genetically engineered viruses, malignant artificial intelligence, earthquakes and tidal waves, global war, and technical accidents. Variations of core themes in the disaster film genre essentially continue to repeat themselves since the late 1950s. For example, scripts about mutated monsters and zombies produced several box office hits in the late 1950s and 1960s with movies such as Godzilla Raids Again (1959) and Night of the Living Dead (1968), and similar stories yielded more recent successful films like Godzilla (1998 and 2014) and the zombie-crazed World War Z (2013). Hollywood films about alien invasions have made it among the top box office films every decade since the 1970s—notable alien invasion movies include The Andromeda Strain (1971), Independence Day (1996) and War of the Worlds (2005)—all of which attracted large audiences. An additional disaster theme entails nuclear war as portrayed in movies such as Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) and On the Beach (1959). Technology run amok is an especially popular theme in disaster films. Billion dollar franchises like The Terminator and The Matrix came to prominence with depictions of a future in which highly intelligent machines wage a war against the human species that created them. The audience appeal of “technology rebelling” is particularly evident in the commercial success of the Jurassic Park series, which with a revenue of $ 5 billion is among the highest grossing movie franchises of all time. Although the Jurassic Park series does not entail a major environmental catastrophe, it is an adventure story of human lives at risk because of misbehaving genetically engineered dinosaurs. Whereas general disaster films are diverse in their premises, films of environmental catastrophe are primarily stories about either corporate greed or flawed societal norms. For example, four of the ten environmental catastrophe movies in Table 1 revolve around corporations knowingly polluting the environment or shirking environmental precautions for the sake of profit (The China Syndrome, Silkwood, Erin Brokovitch, and Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax). These films are less about the environment than they are films about evil corporate behavior. The remaining six environmental disaster films paint a picture of an unlivable dystopian planet that has been gradually degraded by a myopic society that could not take action to avert environmental catastrophe. Notably, none of the environmental disaster films draw on any insights from environmental science or ecology, such as the planetary boundaries framework. Hollywood emphasizes greed and misguided society as opposed to the dangers of ignorance and unwittingly exceeding a critical environmental threshold that science has failed to document and specify. In Hollywood, environmental disasters are the consequence of human failings, and not the consequence of ignorance or major gaps in scientific understanding. We do not want to imply that economic systems or human selfishness are unimportant. There is no question that great harm has been and is being done by what we can only call criminal behavior— either violating existing environmental regulations or lobbying against the passage of regulations even though scientific evidence of harm is compelling. We acknowledge the presence of such behavior, but argue that an engaged public and effective government can mitigate these threats in time to avert global disasters. In contrast, no amount of public engagement or effective governance can mitigate threats that are unknown or under-estimated. Below we draw on the scientific literature to argue that it is our ignorance about the dynamics of complex, tightly coupled, human-natural systems with interacting stresses and feedback loops that is the source of our greatest environmentally-dictated existential risk. While we recognize the failings of human nature, it is the possible failure of science to anticipate the vigor of positive feedback loops or to recognize how different environmental perturbations can amplify one another, that gives us our greatest concern. 3. Which of the planetary boundaries correspond to true existential risk? Johan Rockstr?m and colleagues have identified nine planetary boundaries, which “if crossed could have disastrous consequences for humanity” (Rockstr?m et al., 2009). Conversely, if the planet is stewarded in a way that the boundaries are not crossed it is considered to be in a safe space. One of the planetary boundaries entails atmospheric CO2, with the proposed boundary being 350 ppm, which of course we have already crossed. While there is no solid evidence that in fact 350 ppm is a threshold across which existential risk increases, there is little doubt that at some point greatly elevated CO2 atmospheric concentrations might trigger a series of events that could indeed produce apocalyptic outcomes for humanity (Van Aalst, 2006). These could include changing major ocean circulation patterns, causing massive sea level rise, and increasing the frequency and severity of extreme events (e.g., droughts, storms, floods) that displace people, and ruin economies. The interesting question is whether any of the planetary thresholds other than CO2 could also portend existential risks. Here the answer is not clear. One boundary often mentioned as a concern for the fate of global civilization is biodiversity (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2012), with the proposed safety threshold being a loss of greater than .001% per year (Rockstr?m et al., 2009). There is little evidence that this particular .001% annual loss is a threshold—and it is hard to imagine any data that would allow one to identify where the threshold was (Brook et al., 2013; Lenton & Williams, 2013). A better question is whether one can imagine any scenario by which the loss of too many species leads to the collapse of societies and environmental disasters, even though one cannot know the absolute number of extinctions that would be required to create this dystopia. While there are data that relate local reductions in species richness to altered ecosystem function, these results do not point to substantial existential risks. The data are small-scale experiments in which plant productivity, or nutrient retention is reduced as species number declines locally (Vellend, 2017), or are local observations of increased variability in fisheries yield when stock diversity is lost (Schindler et al., 2010). Those are not existential risks. To make the link even more tenuous, there is little evidence that biodiversity is even declining at local scales (Vellend et al 2017; Vellend et al., 2013). Total planetary biodiversity may be in decline, but local and regional biodiversity is often staying the same because species from elsewhere replace local losses, albeit homogenizing the world in the process. Although the majority of conservation scientists are likely to flinch at this conclusion, there is growing skepticism regarding the strength of evidence linking trends in biodiversity loss to an existential risk for humans (Maier, 2012; Vellend, 2014). Obviously if all biodiversity disappeared civilization would end—but no one is forecasting the loss of all species. It seems plausible that the loss of 90% of the world’s species could also be apocalyptic, but not one is predicting that degree of biodiversity loss either. Tragic, but plausible is the possibility our planet suffering a loss of as many as half of its species. If global biodiversity were halved, but at the same time locally the number of species stayed relatively stable, what would be the mechanism for an end-of-civilization or even end of human prosperity scenario? Extinctions and biodiversity loss are ethical and spiritual losses, but perhaps not an existential risk. What about the remaining eight planetary boundaries? Stratospheric ozone depletion is one—but thanks to the Montreal Protocol ozone depletion is being reversed (Hand, 2016). Disruptions of the nitrogen cycle and of the phosphorous cycle have also been proposed as representing potential planetary boundaries (one boundary for nitrogen and one boundary for phosphorous). There are compelling data linking excesses in these nutrients to environmental damage. For example, over-application of fertilizer in Midwestern USA has led to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, excessive nitrogen has polluted groundwater in California to such an extent that it is unsuitable for drinking and some rural communities are forced to drink bottled water. However, these impacts are local. At the same time that there is too much N loading in the US, there is a need for more N in Africa as a way of increasing agricultural yields (Mueller et al., 2012). While the disruption of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles clearly perturb local ecosystems, end-of-the-world scenarios seem a bit far-fetched. Another hypothesized planetary boundary entails the conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land. The mechanism by which too much agricultural land could cause a crisis is unclear—unless it is because land conversion causes so much biodiversity loss that is species extinctions that are the proximate cause of an eco-catastrophe. Excessive chemical pollution and excessive atmospheric aerosol loading have each been suggested as planetary boundaries as well. In the case of these pollution boundaries, there are well-documented mechanisms by which surpassing some concentration of a pollutant inflicts severe human health hazards. There is abundant evidence linking chemical and aerosol pollution to higher mortality and lower reproductive success in humans, which in turn could cause a major die-off. It is perhaps appropriate then that when Hollywood envisions an unlivable world, it often invokes a story of humans poisoning themselves. That said, it is doubtful that we will poison ourselves towards extinction. Data show that as nations develop and increase their wealth, they tend to clean up their air and water and reduce environmental pollution (Fl?rke et al., 2013; Hao & Wang, 2005). In addition, as economies become more circular (see Mathews & Tan, 2016), environmental damage due to waste products is likely to decline. The key point is that the pollutants associated with the planetary boundaries are so widely recognized, and the consequences of local toxic events are so immediate, that it is reasonable to expect national governments to act before we suffer a planetary ecocatastrophe. In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be associated with existential risks. They all correspond to a degraded environment, but in our assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries (climate change, global freshwater cycle, and ocean acidification) do pose existential risks. This is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops, substantial lag times between system change and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries interact with one another in ways that yield surprises. In addition climate, freshwater, and acidification are all directly connected to the provision of food and water, and shortages of food and water can create conflict and social unrest. Climate change has a long history of disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations (McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American Southwest is held responsible for the collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous potato famine of 1846-1849 and the large migration of Irish to the US can be traced to a combination of factors, one of which was climate. Specifically, 1846 was an unusually warm and moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as well—as the British government forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped to redress the ravaged potato yields). Climate change intersects with freshwater resources because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity, as well as flooding. Climate change can even impair water quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in groundwater as a result of enhanced evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge. Ample clean water is not a luxury – it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and nations that lack clean freshwater are vulnerable to social disruption and disease. Finally, ocean acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global warming is. With close to 20% of the world’s protein coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the potential for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due to acidification. Acidification is known to interfere with oyster reef building and coral reefs. Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity. Coral reefs and oyster reefs provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy (Spalding et al., 2014). If these reefs are lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe and sea level rises, coastal communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge—and may be ravaged by recurrent storms. A key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the world at risk. These extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their likelihood are challenging to detect because of their rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of climate change that we must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017). Society will have a hard time responding to shorter intervals between rare extreme events because in the lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme events. How likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events that are separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically? A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in the past and expected future changes in storm-related flooding of New York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years in the 18th century, and that occurs now once every 25 years, but is expected to occur once every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al, 2017). This change in frequency of extreme floods has profound implications for the measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood frequency is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people. 4. The combination of positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental catastrophes Humans are remarkably ingenious, and have adapted to crises throughout their history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted by innovation (Ridley, 2011). However, the many stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks such as global famine or extreme air pollution represent environmental challenges that are largely linear, have immediate consequences, and operate without positive feedbacks. For example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans consume food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the London fog sent such a clear message that Britain quickly enacted pollution control measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm. In contrast, today’s great environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time delays between rising CO2 concentrations and damage to humans. The consequence of these delays are an absence of urgency; thus although 70% of Americans believe global warming is happening, only 40% think it will harm them (). Secondly, unlike past environmental challenges, the earth’s climate system is rife with positive feedback loops. In particular, as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that very warming can cause more CO2 release which further increases global warming, and then more CO2, and so on. Table 2 summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical, cloud, ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks individually, it is even more essential to study the interactive nature of these feedbacks. Modeling studies show that when interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be magnified (e.g., Cox et al., 2000; Hajima et al., 2014; Knutti & Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld et al., 2014). This produces a wide range of future scenarios. Positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future carbon contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in which oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return feeds back to exacerbate climate change (Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays and carbon is released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warning (Melillo et al, 2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions. The underlying mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the surface albedo, which suppresses rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby initiating or prolonging a drought (Chamey et al., 1975). To top it off, overgrazing depletes the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies et al., 2002). Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result of higher temperatures and persistent drought conditions. The expectation is that forest fires will become more frequent and severe with climate warming and drought (Scholze et al., 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically, the increased severity and risk of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by climate scientists (Jin et al, 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres, wildfire ). This catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks and interacting factors that could catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event. Recordbreaking rains produced an extraordinary flush of new vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course the record-fire released CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future warming. Out of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive up surface temperatures, leading to even more melting of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback (Curry et al., 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace, millions of people may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of sea level rise near coastal communities (Biermann & Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions strengthen the saturation vapor pressure, which creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties (Manabe & Wetherald, 1967). Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, and warmer temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this increase in clouds associated with global warming will result in a positive feedback loop (more warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections (Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex because they both have a cooling (reflecting incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof et al., 1997). The type of cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al., 2013). For example, models and observations show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then has a positive feedback effect and enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is reflected by the atmosphere (Clement et al., 2009). The key lesson from the long list of potentially positive feedbacks and their interactions is that runaway climate change, and runaway perturbations have to be taken as a serious possibility. Table 2 is just a snapshot of the type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary Material for a more thorough explanation of positive feedback loops). However, this list is not exhaustive and the possibility of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends even greater existential risks. The many environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog, water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will based on solid scientific understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change. 5. It is multiplicative stresses (or “double whammies”) that should be our greatest concern It is easy to see how positive feedback loops exacerbate existential risks. A second, but less obvious danger is the linkage of seemingly unrelated processes or phenomenon that increase risk. A good example is wildfires and tornadoes. Both of these represent natural disasters that can cause great damage. Until recently no one linked these two phenomena, and no one would have imagined that an increase in wildfires might cause an increase in tornados. However, researchers in 2016 documented a linkage between wildfires in Central America and the worst episode of tornadoes in North America’s recorded history (Saide et al., 2016)—more than 120 twisters in one day, which killed 316 people. The mechanism is that the aerosol particles produced by wildfires increase the vertical sheer in atmospheric wind speeds, which in turn makes tornadoes more likely and more severe. While tornadoes and wildfires are both local there are other trends that are national or even global that entail interacting risks factors—or what the renowned ecologist Robert T. Paine called a “double whammy” (Paine, 1993). Paine makes the argument that whereas one perturbation or stress on its own might not be terribly worrisome, if an ecosystem is hit with two stresses or threats at the same time (or in quick succession) the result can be surprisingly catastrophic. For example, aging infrastructure in the United States (dams, bridges, levees, etc.) is often talked about as a disaster waiting to happen (Reid, 2008). Similarly, increased extreme rainfall is widely appreciated as a likely outcome of climate change. Putting the two together, we have a recipe for turning improbable events into something that should be expected. A specific example of what was once a highly unlikely tragedy, but is now perhaps a probable disaster is the failure of a large dam. If large aging dams fail due to the combination of decaying infrastructure and unprecedented rainfall, downstream communities could be destroyed. Existing dams were engineered for flood frequencies and rainfall regimes that have been replaced by much more extreme weather events. This should raise general concerns about flood-safety. Not only are the designs for major dams obsolete due to climate changes, the dams themselves are obsolete. In the United States alone, more than 85% of large dams will be more than 50 years old by 2020 (Hossain et al., 2009). Based on data from the National Performance of Dam Failures, the top ten causes of dam incidents in the United States are depicted in Fig. 2a. The most frequent type of incident was attributed to inflow floods—that is more than 1000 dam failures. The reason this is a global concern is that observations (Fig. 2b) in dry and wet regions all over the world show that extreme precipitation events have been increasing since the 1950s (Donat et al., 2017). The combined effect of intensified rainfall and old dams pose a clear risk to communities worldwide. Wildfires Impact---AT: Defense---Turns InfrastructureWildfires can cause huge infrastructure damageRachel Cleetus, 7-2014, PhD in economics, lead economist and climate policy manager with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Playing with Fire How Climate Change and Development Patterns Are Contributing to the Soaring Costs of Western Wildfires,” Union of Concerned Scientists, can threaten watersheds and cause heavy damage to such infrastructure as power lines, water supply stations, roads, and bridges. In many cases, those costs are paid for through utility bills or state and local taxes. For example, after the 2003 San Diego fires, the California Department of Transportation estimated their total loss at roughly $15 million and San Diego Gas and Electric experienced a $71 million loss in infrastructure (Rahn 2009).Forests are important for protecting, regulating, and filtering water resources gathered from rainfall and snow, often at a lower cost than building a filtration and pumping plant. Nationwide, the National Forest System provides drinking water to more than 60 million Americans (DOI 2013). Across much of the West this is particularly significant, including the upper Colorado River basin, where nearly half of all water comes from national forests (DOI 2013). Past wildfires have contributed to massive erosion, threatening water supplies and leading to costly damage on a number of occasions including: the 1997 Buffalo Creek and 2002 Hayman fires, which together cost Denver Water $26 million in rehabilitation costs;87 the 2000 Cerro Grande fire that cost the Los Alamos Water Utility more than $9 million and generated $72.4 million in additional costs;88 the 2009 Station fire and post-fire rainstorms in 2010, which cost the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works $30 million;89 and the 2011 Las Conchas fire, which forced the cities of Santa Fe and Albuquerque to shut down water supply intake systems polluted by ash (DOI 2013).Wildfires can damage electricity poles and towers carrying transmission lines. Smoke and ash from fires can also ionize the air, creating an electrical path away from transmission lines. The loss of electricity can shut down the lines and cause power outages (Ward 2013; Sathaye et al. 2012). For example, in summer 2011, the Las Conchas wildfire in New Mexico threatened two high-voltage transmission lines that deliver electricity to about 400,000 customers (DOE 2013; Samenow 2011). In California, more frequent and intense wildfires linked to climate change are projected to put a large share of transmission equipment at risk. Some major transmission lines in the state face a 40 percent higher probability of wildfire exposure by the end of the century (Sathaye et al. 2012).Wildfires Impact---Funding KeyThe Bureau is implementing new fire restrictions across the southwest, requires extensive enforcement Doug Hendrix 21, Deputy Public Affairs Officer @ the Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation announces support for wildfire restrictions issued for Arizona, Southern Nevada, and Southern California,” BOR, 5-25-21, , // [nayak]BOULDER CITY, Nev. - Due to increasingly high temperatures, low humidity, and dry vegetation, the Bureau of Reclamation is immediately implementing and announcing support for fire restrictions to help reduce the risk of wildfires on lands it manages or maintains in Arizona, Clark County in Southern Nevada, and Imperial and Riverside counties in California, and in support of Bureau of Land Management fire restrictions issued earlier this month.These fire restrictions prohibit:? Building, maintaining, attending or using a fire, a campfire or charcoal stove (except within the approved fire pits or grills provided in developed recreation sites). Operating a portable stove using gas, jellied petroleum or pressurized liquid fuel is allowed, but should be used with care.? Welding or operating an acetylene torch with open flames (except by permit).? Using, or causing to be used, any explosive, except by permit. Use of all fireworks (including Safe and Sane) is prohibited.? Possession and/or use of tracer rounds, steel-jacket ammunition, explosive targets or any other incendiary device.? Operating a motor vehicle or combustion engine equipment without a spark arrestor.? Smoking is allowed in an enclosed vehicle only.In addition, Reclamation supports all Bureau of Land Management Fire Prevention orders and restrictions issued in each state. Violation of these restrictions can result in a fine, imprisonment for up to 6 months or both.Wildfires Impact---Funding SolvesBoR is working on wildfire mitigation projectsBoR, 12-28-2020, "News Archive: Reclamation announces mitigation project to reduce wildfire threats in Granite Bay," BOR, Bureau of Reclamation, in partnership with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, has begun construction of a shaded fuel break in the Granite Bay area of the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area in Placer County. Reclamation partnered with CAL FIRE’s Placer Center which provides fire protection and prevention, environmental conservation, land maintenance and emergency response to natural disasters in the surrounding community. The shaded fuel break project will be managed and administered by Reclamation, and project activities will be carried out by the Placer Center fire crews.“CAL FIRE has been an invaluable resource to Reclamation by providing fire suppression and prevention activities on Reclamation lands throughout California,” said Drew Lessard, Central California area office manager. “We are excited to continue strengthening our relationship by partnering with the Placer Center. This work is critical in mitigating the potential impacts of wildland fire, while protecting natural and cultural resources and improving the safety for the residents of southeastern Placer County.”The goal is to create a shaded fuel break within the wildland-urban-interface zone on federally owned lands to provide wildland fire protection to neighborhoods adjacent to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. A shaded fuel break uses a common fuels-reduction treatment. Some of the larger woody shrubs and smaller trees that often cause wildfire to crown and spread quickly from treetop to treetop through the woodland canopy are removed. This strategy helps slow a fire and provides an area where fire crews, engines and air resources can suppress a fire. Work began Dec. 15, 2020 and is expected to be completed when project activity goals have been reached for the year. This is a two- to three-year process requiring regular maintenance annually between November-June.AFF AnswersLinkNo Trade-OffThere’s dedicated dam funding---no trade-offDianne Feinstein 21, senator from California, “U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Improve Dam Safety, Modernize Hydropower, Restore Rivers,” 7/16/21, 16, 2021 - Washington - Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) Dianne Feinsteinand Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Thursday introduced the Twenty-First Century Dams Act, a bill that would invest $21.1 billion to enhance the safety, grid resilience benefits and power generating capacity of America’s dams and provide historic funding to remove dams that are no longer necessary.(Left) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)Companion legislation was introduced last week in the House of Representatives by Representatives Annie Kuster (D-N.H.) and Don Young (R-Alaska).In the United States there are more than 90,000 dams, including 6,000 “high-hazard” dams that have poor, unsatisfactory or unknown safety ratings that without rehabilitation would pose a threat to human life if they fail. Many dams that generate hydropower are aging and need upgrades to continue providing an essential baseload source of renewable energy. Hydropower is responsible for 6 percent of U.S. electricity production and more than 90 percent of U.S. electricity storage capacity. Additionally, some of the nation’s dams have outlived their useful life and should be removed to restore rivers to their natural state.“It’s shocking that in California alone, we have 89 dams that are in less than satisfactory condition and pose a serious risk to the neighboring communties,” said Senator Feinstein. “The cost – particularly to human life – of a dam collapse would be catastrophic. We can’t ignore this problem. Our bill takes immediate action to repair and modernize certain existing dams and remove those that have outlived their usefulness. It would also make a significant investment in developing more hydropower generation, a critical part of a comprehensive climate strategy and meeting our energy needs.”“There’s no question about it: we must do more to modernize our nation’s water and power infrastructure to protect public health, safety, and our environment,” said Senator Padilla. “This bill will help prevent another Oroville, improve grid resiliency, modernize existing hydropower generation, and improve the health of our nation’s rivers and ecosystems. By removing harmful and obsolete dams in California that threaten endangered species, and bolstering the safety and clean energy potential of existing dams, we can ensure healthy ecosystems, keep our communities safe, and combat the climate crisis. This legislation was born out of a landmark agreement between industry and the environmental community – the type of coalitions we need to build as we move forward with ambitious infrastructure legislation that protects communities and addresses the climate crisis.”“In order to support the production of hydropower in Oregon and across the U.S., there must be a concerted effort to modernize dams across every nook and cranny of the country,” said Senator Wyden said. “The Twenty-First Century Dams Act is a bipartisan push to do just that, investing over $25 billion to enhance dam safety, improve hydroelectric generation and reconnect thousands of miles of streams through voluntary removal of aging dams.”“We have the opportunity to build stronger, more resilient water infrastructure and hydropower systems in the United States, and the Twenty-First Century Dams Act advances an innovative plan to rehabilitate, retrofit or remove U.S. dams (the 3Rs) to bolster clean energy production while taking steps to conserve our waterways for generations to come,” said Representative Kuster. “It is rare to see such coordination and unified problem-solving from across industries, and I was proud to introduce this legislation in the House to enhance America’s clean energy production and the health of our nation’s rivers.”“The state of Alaska has tremendous hydroelectric potential, and through it, we can provide our rural and remote communities with reliable, renewable energy,” said Representative Young. “Unfortunately, our state is home to dams in urgent need of repair and retrofitting, in addition to dams that need to be removed outright. I was proud to join Congresswoman Annie Kuster last week to introduce the Twenty-First Century Dams Act, which will make significant investments to achieve these goals. I have long supported utilizing Alaska’s vast hydropower capabilities, and was proud to support projects such as the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Plant and the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project. Our bill will help us truly unleash Alaska’s hydro momentum so that we can not only diversify our energy portfolio, but secure clean, affordable energy for future generations. I call on my friends on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress to help us get the Twenty-First Century Dams Act across the finish line.”The Twenty-First Century Dams Act would:Improve public safety: Invests in state dam safety capabilities, expands grant funding for the rehabilitation of existing dams and makes available low-interest loans to rehabilitate non-federal dams.Enhance clean energy production and grid resilience: Invests in existing federal dams to improve their safety and renewable energy generating capacity.Restore river ecosystems: Authorizes an interagency and stakeholder advisory committee to help administer a public source of climate resilience and conservation funding to reconnect 10,000 miles of rivers through the removal of 1,000 dams with owner consent.This legislation builds on the negotiations and lessons learned from Stanford University’s Uncommon Dialogue and puts them into action to ensure dams are safe for our communities and designed and operated to meet the climate, economic, and environmental needs of the 21st century.BoR Fails---ExperienceUSBR lacks expertise---they waste money all the timeChris Edwards & Peter J. Hill 12, Peter J. Hill is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, and a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, “Cutting the Bureau of Reclamation and Reforming Water Markets,” era of major federal dam building is over, but Reclamation continues to provide water to the western states at artificially low prices. Without reforms, that policy will exacerbate the major water challenges facing the western states. About four-fifths of water supplied by Reclamation goes to farm businesses, and the agency provides the largest subsidies to those users.3 As a consequence, agriculture must be at the center of efforts to reform federal water policies.Constructing dams for irrigation and hydropower makes sense in some locations. But in the 20th century, the Bureau of Reclamation was an agency run amok with grand engineering plans that ignored economic and environmental logic. The bureau aggressively sought to dam nearly every major river in the West at multiple locations. Dams have harmed wetlands and salmon fisheries, and federal irrigation has generated ongoing problems such as heightened salinity levels in rivers.BoR Fails---FundingBoR is cooked---aging infrastructure & huge deficits.Barajas 19 – Federico Barajas is the executive director for the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, “The Status of the Reclamation Fund and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Future Infrastructure Funding Needs”, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, United States House of Representatives, 7-24-2019, available online @ challenges in the West are significant and daunting. These challenges are not unique to just California; rather they impact every state west of the 100th Meridian. It is critically important to have sufficient infrastructure in place to optimize water supplies during constantly changing climatic conditions. The need is obvious, and this belief is shared by many in the West. For example, in March, the Family Farm Alliance – working with the California Farm Bureau Federation and Western Growers Association – transmitted letters signed by over 100 national and Western agriculture and water organizations, calling upon Members of Congress to develop an infrastructure package that addresses water infrastructure needs for storage and conveyance.Many of the Bureau of Reclamation’s facilities are between 50 and 100 years old. Reclamation has an infrastructure and maintenance backlog of approximately $3 billion. Such aging infrastructure presents a further challenge because it requires ever increasing maintenance and replacement investments. These water resource facilities are dispersed throughout 17 western states and have an original development cost of more than $21 billion. As of 2013, the replacement value of Reclamation’s infrastructure assets was $94.5 billion. Investing in our existing, yet aging infrastructure on the front end will save taxpayers’ money in the long run and allow us to preserve it and the many benefits it provides for future generations.As Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman said in June of 2018: “We need to think ahead 20, 40, 50 years and enhance water infrastructure for reliable water supplies in the future.”CONCLUSIONFederal investments in water supply infrastructure have not kept pace with needs across California and the rest of the West. Regional economies reliant on Reclamation project water have suffered as a result. In addition to aging infrastructure reaching the end of design life, additional projects will need to be constructed to minimize impacts to regional economies and potential disruptions to national food supply. We are reliant on infrastructure investments made by our parents’ generations and new, innovative ways of incentivizing local, state, and federal partnerships to fund the next generation of water infrastructure will need to be made.USBR Resilient---2ACBiden solves resource constraints Robert Manning 21, Chief of Public Affairs @ the Bureau of Reclamation, "President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Makes Significant Investments In Bureau of Reclamation," PR Web, 5-28-2021, , // [nayak]Washington, DC (PRWEB) - The Biden-Harris administration today submitted to Congress the President’s budget for fiscal year 2022, which includes a $1.5 billion investment for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The budget builds on recent announcements to address water issues and supports the administration’s goals of ensuring reliable and environmentally responsible delivery of water and power for farms, families, communities and industry, while providing tools to confront widening imbalances between supply and demand throughout the West.“The Interior Department plays an important role in the President’s plan to reinvest in the American people. From bolstering climate resiliency and increasing renewable energy, to supporting Tribal nations and advancing environmental justice, President Biden’s budget will make much-needed investments in communities and projects that will advance our vision for a robust and equitable clean energy future,” said Secretary Deb Haaland.“Drought, climate change, and issues of equity and sustainability as well as the continuous need to secure and modernize our nation’s water infrastructure are challenges that Reclamation, partners, and stakeholders all face,” said Deputy Commissioner of Reclamation Camille Touton. “Reclamation’s budget for 2022 will provide our team of dedicated professionals a solid operational baseline to develop innovative solutions and support adaptive management of limited resources.”The budget includes four key components that supports the President's commitment to managing water resources in the West including: water reliability and resilience, racial and economic equity, conservation and climate resilience, and infrastructure modernization. ImpactAT: Cyber ImpactNo cyber war or retaliationJasmine Rodet 18, Master’s Degree in Cyber Security, Strategy, and Diplomacy from the University of New South Wales, Cyber Security Program Manager at Fortescue Metals Group, “The Threat of Cyber War is Exaggerated”, 11/11/2018, pulse/threat-cyber-war-exaggerated-jasmine-rodet/For the regular person on the street, the term ‘cyber war’ is more likely to bring to mind the 1983 movie “WarGames” and the doomsday articles that appear regularly in the media about the ‘cyber battlefield’ and an impending World War III. This essay argues that the threat of cyber war is exaggerated and although it can, by definition, be stated that we are already in a state of cyber war, the impact on states is negligible compared to conventional war domains.The argument is presented in 3 steps. The first step is to define cyber war and cyber weapons, referencing scholars and experts in the area of conventional war and the cyber domain. The second step is to explore who has been exaggerating the threat of cyber war and what their motivations might be. The third is to explore the evidence and quantify the probability and impact that cyberwar has had on states to date.‘Cyber war’ is a term often used interchangeably in media with cyber-crime, cyber-attacks, cyber-conflict and cyber-incidents, creating confusion amongst the public and scholars alike. Clausewitz (1989, 75), in his book, On War, defines war as ‘an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will’. Rid (2012, 7) on the other interprets Clausewitz use of ‘force’ as meaning ‘violent’ force. According to Rid, if an act is not potentially violent, it is not an act of war. However, Stone (2013, 107) describes ‘cyber war’ as a politically motivated act of force, not necessarily lethal and not necessarily attributable. The definition by Powers and Jablonski states more simply that cyber war is the utilisation of digital networks for geopolitical purposes (Nocetti 2016, 464). Neither of the latter two definitions requires violence to qualify as cyber war. Under these definitions, the Stuxnet cyber-incident in 2010 and the Estonia incident in 2007 would constitute an act of cyber war, and as such we could say that nations have been at cyber war in the past and are likely to continue to engage in cyber war in years to come. For this essay, I will use Stones definition to argue that even though states may engage in cyber war, the concept of cyber war is exaggerated. It seems that cyber war is deliberately exaggerated in the media and by politicians for financial and political gains. There are countless examples in the media and in politics of the exaggeration of the threat of cyber war and the language used plays a big factor in creating a sense of fear in the community. The Four Corners report, Hacked, is a classic example where the reporter, Andrew Fowler describes the current situation in Australia as ‘… a secret war where the body count is climbing every day’ (Fowler 2013). The documentary reveals nothing violent or lethal about cyber incidents. The documentary is actually about hackers working from locations overseas, having targeted key Federal Government departments and major corporations in Australia.In another example, NATO may be interpreted as exaggerating the threat of Cyber War when they invited Charlie Millar to present at their Conference for Cyber Conflict at the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in 2017. Millar is an independent security evaluator, and his presentation was titled ‘Kim Jong-il and me: How to build a cyber army to attack the US’. He later presented similar content at Def Con 2018. His presentation described the steps he would take to mount a cyber war, including the types of people he would engage, how much he would pay them, what his strategy would be and how much it would cost in total.Who stands to gain from the exaggeration and hype? Logically, one group would be those that gain financially from the sale of cyber protective services and software. According to Valerino, 57% of technical experts surveyed said that we are currently in a cyber arms race and 43% said that the worst-case scenarios are inevitable (Valeriano and Ryan 2015). Translate this into sales and Gartner projects worldwide security spending will reach $96 Billion in 2018, up 8 Percent from 2017 and to top $113 billion by 2020 (Gartner 2017).Additionally, there may be political motivations to exaggerate the threat of cyber war. Cyberspace is not well understood by the general public and fear is natural. In the US’s cyber security debate, observers have noted there is a tendency for policymakers, military leaders, and media, among others, to use frightening ‘cyber-doom scenarios’ when making a case for action on cyber security (Dunn 2008, 2). There is some evidence to suggest that more recently in the political arena; we may be maturing in our understanding of the real threat of cyber war. The Tallinn Manual, an academic, non-binding study on how international law applies to cyber conflicts and cyber warfare, was written at the invitation of the Tallinn-based NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. It was first published in 2013 with the title ‘The Tallinn Manual on the International Law of Cyber War’. In 2017, it was re-released with the revised title ‘Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law of Cyber Operations’. The change in title from ‘war’ to ‘operations’ signifies a more moderate use of language from NATO and is an acknowledgement that cyber incidents generally fall below the threshold at which International Law would declare them to be a formal act of war. Experience over the 4 short years from 2013 to 2017 has demonstrated that cyber incidents tend to have a low-level impact on the target state. As the book’s authors put it ‘the focus of the original Manual was on the most severe cyber operations, those that violate the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, entitle states to exercise the right of self-defence, and/or occur during armed conflict’ while the new version ‘adds a legal analysis of the more common cyber incidents that states encounter on a day-to-day basis and that fall below the thresholds of the use of force or armed conflict’ (Leetaru 2017).To get a better sense if cyber war is exaggerated, we must also consider the probability of cyber war in the future. The probability of cyber war should be weighed up against the probability of conventional war. Where tensions are already high, for example, between North Korea and the US or Russia and Estonia, I would argue that cyber war is more likely than conventional war. This is due to factors including; cyber warfare is less costly than conventional warfare, states are less rational in their decision space in the cyber realm, states find cyber attribution very difficult to achieve so attacks can be undertaken covertly and cyber war is considered ‘a challenge’ and central to the hackers’ ethos (Junio 2013, 128). Further, Sanger describes in his book, The Perfect Weapon, cyber weapons (such as cyber vandalism, Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS), intrusions and advanced persistent threat (APT)) as the ‘perfect weapons’ for the following reasons;They are cheap: When compared to Nuclear weapons, there are only a handful of nations globally that can afford the technology to create a nuclear weapon.They are easily accessible: Unlike a Nuclear bomb that requires uranium, a highly protected metal, in the production process, a cyber weapon can be created with minimal investment and highly available IT infrastructure.They can be dialled-up or dialled-down relatively easily. A ballistic missile, the force of the explosion cannot be adjusted as easily as a DDOS attack. A DDOS attack can be adjusted to last an hour, a few days or a few weeks.They have a huge range in how they are used: Sabotage as with Stuxnet, Espionage as with the Chinese industrial spying on the US, North Korea’s infiltration of Sony, the Iranians attack on Las Vegas Sands Corp. casino operators.The significant factor is that cyber weapons can and are being used every day for discrete, low-level cyber conflicts to undermine and disrupt rivals, but historically it has not progressed to open conflict, nor has it warranted a military response (Sanger 2018). Additionally, massive cyber operations would necessarily impact the civilian population and violate the immunity of non-combatants. The conditions of war dictate that this is “taboo” and to date, rival states have shown restraint in their use of cyber weapons for this reason (Valeriano and Ryan 2015). It appears that the threat that cyber weapons represent to national security is overstated and the threat of cyber war is overstated.The US and likely other highly networked nations appear reticent about using cyber weapons for significant cyber conflict given their vulnerabilities. Ironically, NSA programs such as PRISM have made the US more of a target given the sheer volume of sensitive information stored in one place. Regardless of US defences, there is no way to make this information completely secure from intrusion, and as such, the very act of storing the information makes them more vulnerable. Rid (2012) is among some academics who argue that cyber war has never and will likely never eventuate. The benefits of being on this side of the debate mean that public funding can be allocated away from offensive cyber security initiatives to other, potentially more important initiatives, such as public health and housing. The government is constantly under pressure to prioritise public spending and it is imperative that they have realistic, accurate projections regarding the risk of cyber war, the probability and the impact, to allow them to focus spending on the most important areas.AT: Cyber Impact---ExtNo large-scale cyber attacks or retaliationDr. Joseph S. Nye 19, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, “Global Cyber Conflicts Will Be Hard To Control”, The Statesman (Pakistan), 10/14/2019, LexisThe problem of perceptions and controlling escalation is not new. In August 1914, the major European powers expected a short and sharp “Third Balkan War.” The troops were expected to be home by Christmas. After the assassination of the Austrian archduke in June, Austria-Hungary wanted to give Serbia a bloody nose, and Germany gave its Austrian ally a blank check rather than see it humiliated. But when the Kaiser returned from vacation at the end of July and discovered how Austria had filled in the check, his efforts to de-escalate were too late. Nonetheless, he expected to prevail and almost did.Had the Kaiser, the Czar, and the Emperor known in August 1914 that a little over four years later, all would lose their thrones and see their realms dismembered, they would not have gone to war. Since 1945, nuclear weapons have served as a crystal ball in which leaders can glimpse the catastrophe implied by a major war. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, leaders learned the importance of de-escalation, arms-control communication, and rules of the road to manage conflict.Cyber technology, of course, lacks the clear devastating effects of nuclear weapons, and that poses a different set of problems, because there is no crystal ball. During the Cold War, the great powers avoided direct engagement, but that is not true of cyber conflict. And yet the threat of cyber Pearl Harbors has been exaggerated. Most cyber conflicts occur below the threshold established by the rules of armed conflict. They are economic and political, rather than lethal. It is not credible to threaten a nuclear response to cyber theft of intellectual property by China or cyber meddling in elections by Russia.According to American doctrine, deterrence is not limited to a cyber response (though that is possible). The US will respond to cyberattacks across domains or sectors, with any weapons of its choice, proportional to the damage that has been done. That can range from naming and shaming to economic sanctions to kinetic weapons. Earlier this year, a new doctrine of “persistent engagement” was described as not only disrupting attacks, but also helping to reinforce deterrence. But the technical overlap between intrusion into networks to gather intelligence or disrupt attacks and to carry out offensive operations often makes it difficult to distinguish between escalation and de-escalation. Rather than relying on tacit bargaining, as proponents of “persistent engagement” sometimes emphasize, explicit communication may be necessary to limit escalation.No cyber impact---every scenario is empirically denied James Andrew Lewis 18, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, January 2018, “Rethinking Cybersecurity: Strategy, Mass Effect, and States,” , p. 7-11The most dangerous and damaging attacks required resources and engineering knowledge that are beyond the capabilities of nonstate actors, and those who possess such capabilities consider their use in the context of some larger strategy to achieve national goals. Precision and predictability—always desirable in offensive operations in order to provide assured effect and economy of force—suggest that the risk of collateral damage is smaller than we assume, and with this, so is the risk of indiscriminate or mass effect. State Use of Cyber Attack Is Consistent with Larger Strategic Aims Based on a review of state actions to date, cyber operations give countries a new way to implement existing policies rather than leading them to adopt new policy or strategies. State opponents use cyber techniques in ways consistent with their national strategies and objectives. But for now, cyber may be best explained as an addition to the existing portfolio of tools available to nations. Cyber operations are ideal for achieving the strategic effect our opponents seek in this new environment. How nations use cyber techniques will be determined by their larger needs and interests, by their strategies, experience, and institutions, and by their tolerance for risk. Cyber operations provide unparalleled access to targets, and the only constraint on attackers is the risk of retaliation—a risk they manage by avoiding actions that would provoke a damaging response. This is done by staying below an implicit threshold on what can be considered the use of force in cyberspace. The reality of cyber attack differs greatly from our fears. Analysts place a range of hypothetical threats, often accompanied by extreme consequences, before the public without considering the probability of occurrence or the likelihood that opponents will choose a course of action that does not advance their strategic aims and creates grave risk of damaging escalation. Our opponents' goals are not to carry out a cyber 9/11. While there have been many opponent probes of critical infrastructure facilities in numerous countries, the number of malicious cyber actions that caused physical damage can be counted on one hand. While opponents have probed critical infrastructure networks, there is no indication that they are for the purposes of the kind of crippling strategic attacks against critical infrastructure that dominated planning in the Second World War or the Cold War. Similarly, the popular idea that opponents use cyber techniques to inflict cumulative economic harm is not supported by evidence. Economic warfare has always been part of conflict, but there are no examples of a country seeking to imperceptibly harm the economy of an opponent. The United States engaged in economic warfare during the Cold War, and still uses sanctions as a tool of foreign power, but few if any other nations do the same. The intent of cyber espionage is to gain market or technological advantage. Coercive actions against government agencies or companies are intended to intimidate. Terrorists do not seek to inflict economic damage. The difficulty of wreaking real harm on large, interconnected economies is usually ignored.Economic warfare in cyberspace is ascribed to China, but China's cyber doctrine has three elements: control of cyberspace to preserve party rule and political stability, espionage (both commercial and military), and preparation for disruptive acts to damage an opponent's weapons, military information systems, and command and control. "Strategic" uses, such as striking civilian infrastructure in the opponent's homeland, appear to be a lower priority and are an adjunct to nuclear strikes as part of China's strategic deterrence. Chinese officials seem more concerned about accelerating China's growth rather than some long-term effort to undermine the American economy.6 The 2015 agreement with the United States served Chinese interests by centralizing tasking authority in Beijing and ending People's Liberation Army (PLA) "freelancing" against commercial targets. The Russians specialize in coercion, financial crime, and creating harmful cognitive effect—the ability to manipulate emotions and decisionmaking. Under their 2010 military doctrine on disruptive information operations (part of what they call "New Generation Warfare"). Russians want confusion, not physical damage. Iran and North Korea use cyber actions against American banks or entertainment companies like Sony or the Sands Casino, but their goal is political coercion, not destruction. None of these countries talk about death by 1000 cuts or attacking critical infrastructure to produce a cyber Pearl Harbor or any of the other scenarios that dominate the media. The few disruptive attacks on critical infrastructure have focused almost exclusively on the energy sector. Major financial institutions face a high degree of risk but in most cases, the attackers' intent is to extract money. There have been cases of service disruption and data erasure, but these have been limited in scope. Denial-of-service attacks against banks impede services and may be costly to the targeted bank, but do not have a major effect on the national economy. In all of these actions, there is a line that countries have been unwilling to cross. When our opponents decided to challenge American "hegemony," they developed strategies to circumvent the risks of retaliation or escalation by ensuring that their actions stayed below the use-of-force threshold—an imprecise threshold, roughly defined by international law, but usually considered to involve actions that produce destruction or casualties. Almost all cyber attacks fall below this threshold, including, crime, espionage, and politically coercive acts. This explains why the decades-long quest to rebuild Cold War deterrence in cyberspace has been fruitless. It also explains why we have not seen the dreaded cyber Pearl Harbor or other predicted catastrophes. Opponents are keenly aware that launching catastrophe brings with it immense risk of receiving catastrophe in return. States are the only actors who can carry out catastrophic cyber attacks and they are very unlikely to do so in a strategic environment that seeks to gain advantage without engaging in armed conflict. Decisions on targets and attack make sense only when embedded in their larger strategic calculations regarding how best to fight with the United States. There have been thousands of incidents of cybercrime and cyber espionage, but only a handful of true attacks, where the intent was not to extract information or money, but to disrupt and, in a few cases, destroy. From these incidents, we can extract a more accurate picture of risk. The salient incidents are the cyber operations against Iran's nuclear weapons facility (Stuxnet), Iran's actions against Aramco and leading American banks, North Korean interference with Sony and with South Korean banks and television stations, and Russian actions against Estonia, Ukrainian power facilities, Canal 5 (television network in France), and the 2016 U S. presidential elections. Cyber attacks are not random. All of these incidents have been part of larger geopolitical conflicts involving Iran, Korea, and the Ukraine, or Russia's contest with the United States and NATO. There are commonalities in each attack. All were undertaken by state actors or proxy forces to achieve the attacking state's policy objectives. Only two caused tangible damage; the rest created coercive effect, intended to create confusion and psychological pressure through fear, uncertainty, and embarrassment. In no instance were there deaths or casualties. In two decades of cyber attacks, there has never been a single casualty. This alone should give pause to the doomsayers. Nor has there been widespread collateral damage. AT: Earthquake ImpactQuakes don’t cause extinctionConn et al. 16, Ariel Conn is a seismologist at the Future of Life Institute; Seth Baum is at the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Dr. Martin Chapman is a seismologist at Virginia Tech, “Earthquakes as Existential Risks?,” Future of Life Institute, 7/26/16, transcribed by Otter, Cohen 21:23Yeah. I'm still not convinced. Seth Baum 21:27Fair enough. Ariel Cohen 21:30I mean, we've just, we've had enough natural disasters. And they didn't, they just they didn't have that effect. We have had natural disasters hit at least relatively large cities. I mean, Taiwan doesn't surprise me, that it would be a problem, because I feel like there's a lot of stuff that says made in Taiwan on it. So it wouldn't surprise me that that would have problems. And yet it still, I mean, maybe it affected Dell and a couple computer companies, but they did survive. And New York was obviously attacked in 2001. And that, that shut down the city.Seth Baum 22:06The city was kind of put on pause for a little bit, but... I mean Hurricane Sandy shut the city down more than the 9/11 attacks did. But that's a fair point. That's an important point that because we've had earthquakes, even large earthquakes repeatedly over the years, and other natural disasters of similar magnitude over the years, and we've seen over and over again, we survive them as a whole. And some people don't, and that's tragic in its own right. But human civilization as a whole survives them. Therefore, probably next time it happens, we will also survive that. So that's that's a fair point. At the same time, maybe there's a chance. But it, I don't know, it's not what, me with my global catastrophe hat on, that's not what I worry about, earthquakes.Ariel Cohen 23:04Yeah, I've studied them a lot. And I can't figure out any way to worry about them. It was time to get Martin's take, could an earthquake actually destroy a major city like New York City or Washington DC?Dr. Martin Chapman 23:18Well, the earthquake occurring is not, you know, it's not likely. We know, we don't have magnitude seven earthquakes on, you know, anywhere near frequent basis, along the east coast, but they have occurred in the past, you know, either magnitude seven earthquake wrecked Charleston, South Carolina back in 1886. And it's not out of the realm of possibility that a major earthquake could strike in the Washington DC area. We have a fairly extensive historical record of moderate to severe earthquakes in Central Virginia, which is only about 120 or 30 kilometers away from Washington. So I think the possibility of that happening is not zero. Ariel Cohen 24:11What are what are the odds of something that big hitting New York? Dr. Martin Chapman 24:15Well, it would be similar to what you would predict for Washington, DC or anywhere along the eastern seaboard. The likelihood of a major, say a magnitude seven or bigger earthquake is, is remote given the way we calculate hazard, or estimate hazard these days, it gives a low probability for an event like that, but it's not zero. It's, it's got a finite probability of happening basically anywhere along the east coast as best we can. But as far as wiping people out, you know, it's hard to imagine a situation where just affecting one city, even if it was very severely impacted locally, in an urban area, how that will affect the global population, you know, immediately. Unless you had something else involved, like some kind of a, well, you know, triggering a Doomsday thing or something. Ariel Cohen 25:16Seth and I had now come to an official conclusion.Seth Baum 25:20The potential for earthquakes to cause a major global catastrophe seems like, yeah, probably not. But hey, this is important, this is useful, we have one thing that we probably don't need to worry about, at least at that scale.Ariel Cohen 25:36There you go. That's the bright side, we don't need to worry about earthquakes destroying the world. Now that we'd ruled out earthquakes as an existential risk. What did Martin think might be the biggest existential risk we face?AT: Meltdowns ImpactNo one will dieNick Stockton 16, Science Reporter for WIRED magazine, "Nuclear Power Is Too Safe to Save the World From Climate Change," WIRED, 4/3/2016, ’s a good deal, but still. Show a crowd a pair of cooling towers, and at least some of them will see an atomic apocalypse featuring three-eyed fish, leafless forests, and hospital-gowned Soviet defectors with skin like glistening mayonnaise. Nuclear power may be clean, but people still question whether it is, or ever will be, safe enough.Those fears may be moot. Safety concerns didn’t delay construction on Watts Bar Unit 2 for so many years. Economics did. For all that fear, nuclear power still has the safest track record of any power source.The DangerNuclear energy sources are dangerous because they emit radiation—particles and energy shed from unstable molecules trying to calm down. “Those radioactive missiles can hit the human body and damage cells or DNA,” says David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientist’s nuclear safety project. Enough radiation will give you cancer, or possibly even pass genetic mutations on to your kids. Too much can kill you outright.But plants like Watts Bar don’t release much radiation into the environment. Inside, radioactive material heats water, which turns into steam, which spins the enormous turbines that generate electricity. Plants regularly release some of that water and steam at rates prescribed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and if you live downriver or downwind of one, the radiation within will raise your chances of developing a tumor by just one tenth of one percent. You’re far more likely to grow a tumor because you sneak a cigarette now and again.But you aren’t afraid of routine releases. You’re terrified of another Three Mile Island, Fukushima, or Chernobyl.These disasters were the result of a meltdown, which occurs when something impedes a reactor’s ability to cool the fuel. The US, where nearly 20 percent of electricity comes from 99 nuclear plants, uses uranium. Older reactors—which is every reactor in the US, including Watts Bar Unit 2—use electric pumps to move water through the system. The Fukushima disaster showed what happens if you have pumps but no power to use them. Newer generations rely on gravity instead, draining cooling water from elevated storage tanks to send it through the reactor core.Those updates mean serious nuclear accidents are becoming ever more rare. Since Three Mile Island in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the rate of shut-down-the-reactor-level problems has dropped from 2.5 per plant per year to around 0.1 (One such happened on March 29 in Washington). Even Three Mile Island wasn’t the disaster it could have been, because of that plant’s layers of redundant protection.In terms of full blown nuclear disaster, there is really only one data point: Chernobyl. Which was horrifying. But in terms of real risk? The World Health Organization estimates the disaster will claim 4,000 lives, a figure that includes everything from direct victims to people born with genetic mutations well after the meltdown in 1986. By comparison, particulate matter from coal power plants kills about 7,500 people in the US every year. Radiation is the shark attack of environmental danger: An awful way to go, but far less likely than, say, a car wreck.AT: Wildfires ImpactWildfires are a low level historically – more wildfires are fine, it won’t collapse the forests.Hanson ’10 [Chad Hanson, Ph.D., The Myth of “Catastrophic” Wildfire A New Ecological Paradigm of Forest Health, John Muir Project Technical Report 1, Winter 2010, library/inbox/the-myth-of-catastrophic-wildfire]We are in a major fire deficit. There is now far less fire overall, and less high-intensity fire, than there was historically.Fire extent in general remains heavily suppressed in western U.S. forests such that historic annual extent of burning was several times greater than the annual extent of burning under current conditions (Medler 2006, Stephens et al. 2007). Using more conservative estimates of historic fire extent (Baker and Ehle 2001), annual burning in forests prior to fire suppression was still several times higher than it is now. Western U.S. conifer forests remain in a serious “fire deficit” (Medler 2006). Even high-intensity effects are in deficit currently, relative to the extent of high-intensity fire prior to fire suppression and logging.High-intensity fire was previously assumed to have been rare and of limited extent in most western U.S. conifer forests, largely because fire-scar studies documented frequent fire occurrence in most historic conifer forests, and it was assumed that frequent fire would have kept surface fuel levels low, preventing high-intensity fire. The problem, however, is that fire-scar records cannot detect occurrence of past high-intensity effects, wherein most trees were killed (Baker and Ehle 2001).Historic data and recent reconstructions of historic fire regimes indicate that high-intensity fire was common in most conifer forests of western North America prior to fire suppression and logging, even in pine-dominated forests with frequent fire regimes “(Baker et al. 2007, Hessburg et al. 2007, Klenner et al. 2008, Whitlock et al. 2008, Baker et al. 2009). For example, a recent reconstruction of historic fire occurrence in a 1,587 ha (unmanaged) research natural area near Lassen Volcanic National Park found mid-elevation slopes to be dominated by moderate-intensity fire, mixed with some low- and high-intensity effects, while upper-elevation slopes were dominated by high-intensity fire (Beaty and Taylor 2001). Other research has found steep declines in montane chaparral within mixed conifer forest ecosystems in the Lake Tahoe Basin of the central and northern Sierra Nevada due to a decrease in high-intensity fire occurrence since the 19th century (Nagel and Taylor 2005).In the late 19th century, John B. Leiberg and his team of United States Geological Survey researchers spent several years mapping forest conditions, including fire intensity in the central and northern Sierra Nevada. Leiberg recorded all high-intensity patches over 80 acres (32 ha) in size occurring in the previous 100 years (Leiberg 1902). Using modern GIS vegetation and physiographic information, Hanson (2007a) compared fire locations to forest type and site conditions to examine patterns of high-intensity fire events, excluding areas that had been logged in the 19th century in order to eliminate the potentially confounding effect of logging slash debris (branches and twigs left behind by loggers). Hanson (2007a) used areas that Leiberg had mapped as having experienced 75-100% timber volume mortality.Hanson (2007a) found that high-intensity fire was not rare in historic Sierra Nevada forests, as some have assumed. Over the course of the 19th century, within Leiberg’s study area, encompassing the northern Sierra Nevada, approximately one-fourth to one-third of middle and upper elevation westside forests burned at highintensity (75100% mortality) (Hanson 2007a). This equates to fire rotation intervals for high-intensity fire of roughly 400 to 300 years (i.e., for a fire rotation interval of 300 years, a given area would tend to burn at high severity once every 300 years on average). Available evidence indicates that current rates of high-intensity fire are considerably lower than this overall (Hanson 2007a). For example, the Final EIS for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment indicates that, on average, there are about 15,000 acres of high-intensity fire occurring per year in Sierra Nevada forests (entire Sierra Nevada included) (USDA 2004). Given the size of the forested area in the Sierra Nevada, about 13 million acres (Franklin and Fites-Kaufman 1996), this equates to a highintensity fire rotation interval of more than 800 years in current forests (longer rotation intervals correspond to less high-intensity fire).Nor were pre-fire-suppression high-intensity patches all small, as has often been assumed. In fact, in unlogged areas mapped by Leiberg (1902), some aggregate patches of high-intensity effects were 20,000 to 30,000 acres in size, or larger (Leiberg 1902, Hanson 2007a (Fig. 3.1)), greater than any current high-intensity patches. The findings of Hanson (2007a) are consistent with those of Beaty and Taylor (2001), whose reconstruction of historic fire regimes in unmanaged forests just north of Leiberg’s study area found that, despite relatively frequent low-intensity fire occurrence, moderate- high-intensity fire were common and historically in these forests. Specifically, Beaty and Taylor (2001) found that approximately 15% of montane forests 1370-1770 m in elevation burned at high intensity over a 43-year period from 1883 to 1926 (Beaty and Taylor 2001). This equates to a high-intensity rotation interval of about 300 years. Bekker and Taylor (2001) found historic high-intensity fire rotations of 200 to 250 years in eastside mixed-conifer/fir forests types north of Leiberg’s study area (California Cascades region). High-intensity rotation intervals of several hundred years in length, and much more frequent lower-intensity fire, indicates forests in which individual fires would, on average, tend to burn predominantly at low-and moderate-intensity, but would have the potential to burn at high-intensity under certain weather and fuel loading conditions. A high-intensity fire rotation of about 300 years was also found in the mixed-conifer and Jeffrey pine forests of the Sierra San Pedro de Martir in Baja California – forests that have never been subjected to fire suppression and have not been logged (Minnich et al. 2000).Historic U.S. Geological Survey data gathered by Leiberg (1900b) provides further evidence of an active role for high-intensity fire prior to fire suppression. Leiberg (1900b) gathered comprehensive data on high-intensity fire occurrence for the period 1855-1900 in the Oregon Klamath region, presenting data on high-intensity (75-100% timber volume mortality) acres and acres logged for each township. Excluding the townships with any evidence of logging (in order to eliminate any confounding effects of logging), there were 12,700 acres of high-intensity fire in 72,580 acres of unmanaged forest over a 45-year period prior to fire suppression (Leiberg 1900b). This equates to a high-intensity rotation of 257 years. The high-intensity rotation within the Eastern Oregon Cascades physiographic province (Moeur et al. 2005) prior to fire suppression and logging was 165 years overall, and was 322 years for forests with more than 85% ponderosa pine (Leiberg 1900b), indicating far The Myth of more high-intensity fire than is occurring currently (889-year high-intensity rotation in mature forests from 1984 “Catastrophic” Wildfire to 2005) (Hanson et al. 2009, Hanson et al. 2010 in press in Conservation Biology).Natural forest resilience means there’s no global scope to their environment impacts --- stronger fires don’t destroy entire biomesLee 17 [Derek, PhD, is a quantitative wildlife biologist with expertise in conservation demography and population ecology, “Proposed Forest Thinning Will Sabotage Natural Forest Climate Adaptation and Resistance to Drought, Fire, and Insect Outbreaks,” Jan 14, 2017, ]The USDA Forest Service is proposing widespread forest thinning on our public lands across the West in a misguided attempt to reduce the impact of drought, fire, and insects (see National Forest Restoration Projects, Sierra Nevada National Forest Land Management Plan Revisions, news articles). These logging schemes are the latest in a series of Forest Service attempts to chainsaw their way out of a perceived problem. However, forests in the western United States have evolved to naturally self-thin uncompetitive trees through forest fires, insects, or disease. Forest fires and other disturbances are natural elements of healthy, dynamic forest ecosystems, and have been for millennia. These processes cull the weak and make room for the continued growth and reproduction of stronger, climate-adapted trees. Remaining live trees are genetically adapted to survive the new climate conditions and their offspring are also more climate-adapted, resistant, and resilient than the trees that perished. Without genetic testing of every tree in the forest, indiscriminate thinning will remove many of the trees that are intrinsically the best-adapted to naturally survive drought, fire, and insects.Recent studies have demonstrated that genetic variation is high within populations of forest trees, with especially high diversity found at the lower latitudes and altitudes that form the edges of a species’ distribution. Local genetic and epigenetic variation makes some individuals naturally more likely to survive drought, fire, and insect outbreaks. This is because ecotones, or transitional areas, are where each species experiences the most extreme climate conditions that it can survive, the lowest elevation and latitude boundary. These natural edges are where trees with the most resistant and resilient adaptations are found. It is also where significant mortality is to be expected as part of the process where the distribution of tree species shifts north and uphill in our warming climate.After forest fire or insect-caused mortality, green forest naturally regenerates without any need for expensive human interventions. Locally climate-adapted tree seedlings sprout and grow, and nitrogen-fixing shrubs and forbs replenish the soil and curb erosion. In the meantime, standing dead trees, snags, and logs provide critical food and shelter for many types of wildlife. Seedlings used in most Forest Service replanting efforts are bred for timber production, and although breeding programs are now looking for drought and temperature tolerance, there is a natural breeding program already underway that costs nothing and ensures the most locally adapted individuals will resist and persist as the climate warms.Weather and climate data are painting a clear picture of warmer, drier summers across most of the western United States. Forest fires are strongly correlated with the Palmer Drought Severity Index where drier years make bigger fires, so people living in fire-prone areas need to be prepared for wildfire as an inevitable occurrence, and take all precautions to protect their homes with defensible space and ember-stopping attic vent screens. Thinning the forest within a hundred yards from structures and some minor fireproof retrofitting are the only practices proven to protect homes and communities from wildfire.The West is getting drier than it was in the recent past, and that will require some adaptation, particularly in light of the significant recent human population growth in rural areas. We must also understand that recent fires are not unprecedented in size or severity as is often claimed by people who make money cutting our trees. The early 20th century sometimes saw 30 million acres of forest burn, and that was before widespread fire suppression, so fuel buildup is not the looming fire monster some folks who profit from logging have made it out to be. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download