Letter to Peter DeFazio, Chair for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Sam Graves, Ranking Member for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Grace Napolitano, Chair for the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member for the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment - Barragán Leads Call for Natural Infrastructure Projects, Access in Underserved Communities

Letter

Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommitee Chair Napolitano, and Ranking Subcommittee Member Westerman:

Thank you for all of your work to gather feedback and submissions requests from House members on project, study, and policy requests for the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2020.

As you work to finalize WRDA authorizations, we urge you to make two critical environmental reforms to remove arbitrary barriers to natural infrastructure, and to make it easier for low income and underserved communities to engage in effective flood risk management planning for their communities.

Natural infrastructure can be a highly effective, and cost-effective, tool for protecting communities and increasing the resilience of the nation's water resources infrastructure. It makes communities safer and more resilient by absorbing floodwaters and buffering storm surges, and provides an extra line of defense that improves the effectiveness and resilience of levees and other infrastructure. Projects that restore natural infrastructure are also a significant creator of jobs that by necessity are local and cannot be exported.

Protecting and restoring natural infrastructure leads to healthy rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and
shorelines and increases the many benefits those systems provide for public health and wellbeing. The diverse environmental benefits provided by sustainable and cost-effective natural infrastructure can be particularly valuable for underserved communities that suffer from flooding in combination with environmental health challenges.

Removing Barriers to Natural infrastructure

Despite the many important benefits provided by natural infrastructure, it remains an underused tool for reducing flood risks. We must ensure that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects and operations take full advantage of natural infrastructure and enhance rather than harm these vital natural systems.

Unfortunately, the Corps treats natural infrastructure and nonstructural measures differently when assessing the non-Federal cost share, with significant implications for communities. The non-federal cost share for nonstructural flood projects is 35% of total project costs, including the costs of all lands, easements, rights of way, and disposal sites. In contrast, the non-federal cost share for natural infrastructure projects can be as high as 50% of total project costs. This is because the Corps typically accounts for natural infrastructure as a structural project, which requires the non-federal sponsor to pay 35% of project costs plus the cost of land, easements, rights of way, and disposal sites, up to a combined maximum of 50% of project costs.

To address this disparity, Congress should clarify that natural infrastructure projects are subject to the same cost share requirements as nonstructural projects. This would be consistent with 33 U.S.C. § 701n(a)(4), which defines the term "nonstructural alternatives" for the purpose of the PL 84-99 program to include "efforts to restore or protect natural resources, including streams, rivers, floodplains, wetlands, or coasts, if those efforts will reduce flood risk."

Facilitate Flood Risk Management Planning for Underserved Communities

Non-Federal sponsors pay 50% of the cost of feasibility studies for flood and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects. While this study cost-share provides an important safeguard for taxpayers, it can be a significant barrier to evaluating opportunities for addressing flooding that disproportionately impacts minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations.

To assist undeserved communities, Congress should establish targeted criteria for waiving the non- federal cost share for flood and storm damage reduction feasibility studies and require that such studies fully evaluate natural infrastructure solutions. Natural infrastructure can provide sustainable, environmentally protective, and less expensive solutions for avoiding and reducing risks while also improving public health and well-being.

Recommended legislative language to achieve both of these proposed improvements is appended to this letter.

We appreciate your consideration of this request and urge you to ensure that natural infrastructure is a critical resilience strategy for our nation's water resources infrastructure, and to increase access of flood risk management planning for underserved communities.

Sincerely,

Source