Water Resources Development Act of 2007--Conference Report

Floor Speech

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007--CONFERENCE REPORT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the vote today on the conference report of the Water Resources Development Act. Had I been present, I would have supported the conference report because it authorizes a number of essential flood control, navigation and ecosystem projects in Massachusetts and around the Nation. We have a responsibility to safeguard our environment, and this legislation will help ensure that future generations will be able to take full advantage of all that nature offers in Massachusetts.

The conference report directs the Army Corps of Engineers to study the Gateway region of Lawrence to determine whether to fill abandoned channels along the Merrimack and Spicket Rivers. Filling the channels will allow for the site to be redeveloped safely and stop chemical leakage into the Merrimack River. It also requires the Army Corps to conduct a navigation study of the Merrimack River in Haverhill to determine whether the agency should proceed with dredging to improve navigation.

The conference report modifies the coordinates of the Federal navigation channels in the Mystic River in Medford and the Island End River in Chelsea. The modifications will support waterfront development by increasing access to the channels.

It also directs the Army Corps of Engineers to study Woods Hole, the East Basin of Cape Cod Canal in Sandwich, and Oak Bluffs Harbor to determine whether the Army Corps should proceed with dredging in those areas to improve navigation. It modifies the coordinates of the federal navigation channels in Chatham's Aunt Lydia's Cove and Falmouth Harbor. These modifications will support waterfront development by increasing access to the channels.

An earlier Army Corps of Engineers restoration plan for Milford Pond recommends that the pond be dredged. The conference report authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to assist the community in removing the excess sediment.

Finally, the conference report directs the Army Corps to prepare an environmental restoration report on Mill Pond in Littleton. This report is an essential step before the Army Corps can assist the community in removing excess sediment and restoring the pond.

Much good will come from the provisions I have described here, all of which I worked to include in the final version of the Water Resources Development Act. However, we must recognize that our work to improve Corps of Engineers project planning is not done. Corps project planning must account for climate change, and Corps projects should use nonstructural approaches whenever practicable to help protect the natural systems that can buffer the increased floods, storms, storm surges, and droughts that we will see as the Earth's temperature continues to rise. The safety and well-being of communities across the country are at stake.

Many of my colleagues have already expressed their support for this important change. In May of this year, 51 Senators voted for a bipartisan climate change amendment to the Water Resources Development Act that I offered along with Senators COLLINS, FEINGOLD, SANDERS, CARPER, REED, BIDEN, WHITEHOUSE, CANTWELL, SNOWE and NELSON. Unfortunately, we needed 60 votes to sustain the amendment.

I remain deeply committed to ensuring that the Corps, and all of our federal agencies, plan for the future climate that we know will be upon us, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight.

It is clear that climate change is real and that its affects must be factored into our public policy. It is equally clear that climate change will have very significant consequences for the safety and welfare of the American people, and people across the globe.

The basic facts are these: At both poles and in nearly all points in between, the temperature of the Earth's surface is heating up at a frightening and potentially catastrophic rate. Temperatures have already increased about .8 degrees Centigrade, about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Even if we could stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, the current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere almost certainly will produce additional temperature increases. Realistic projections of future warming range from 2 to 11.5« F.

These are the findings of scientists and governments from across the globe, as set forth in the most recent report of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report was written by some 600 scientists and reviewed by 600 experts. It was then edited by officials from 154 governments. The IPCC report concludes that it is ``unequivocal that Earth's climate is warming as it is now evident from the observations of increases in global averages of air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snows and ice, and rising global mean sea level.''

Scientists expect that the earth's increased temperatures will cause an increase in extreme weather events, including more powerful storms, more frequent floods, and extended droughts. These changes threaten the health and safety of individuals and communities around the globe. These changes also pose a significant threat to the economy, and will put added pressure on water resources, increasing competition among agricultural, municipal, industrial, and ecological uses.

The United States is extremely vulnerable to these threats. Coastal communities and habitats, especially along the gulf and Atlantic coasts, will be stressed by increasing sea level and more intense storms, both of which can lead to greater storm surges and flooding. In the West, there will be more flooding in the winter and early spring followed by more water shortages during the summer. The Great Lakes and major river systems are expected to have lower water levels, exacerbating existing challenges for managing water quality, navigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and water transfers. The Southwestern United States is already in the midst of a drought that is projected to continue in the 21st century and may cause the area to transition to a more arid climate.

The Corps of Engineers stands on the front lines of all of these threats to our water resources. They are our first responders in the fight against global warming. Hurricane and flood protection for New Orleans, levees along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, levees in Sacramento, CA, and ports up and down our coasts, east and west are just a few of the many hundreds of Corps projects that will feel the strain, impact, and consequences of global climate change.

Corps planning currently does not take climate change into account. To the contrary, the Corps' current planning guidelines are explicitly based on the existence of a stable and unchanging climate, and on the assumption that flooding is not affected by climate trends or cycles. Continued reliance on these outdated guidelines is like driving down the highway at 80 miles an hour with blinders on. It is bound to lead to disaster.

The only climate change impact addressed by the Corps' guidelines is sea level rise. Under its internal planning guidelines, the Corps is supposed to take account of sea level rise when planning coastal projects. Those guidelines do not require the Corps to assess any other effects of global warming like increased hurricanes, storm surges, and flooding. The Corps' compliance even with its internal requirement to look at sea level rise is spotty at best. For example, in proposing a $133 million dredging project for Bolinas Lagoon in northern California, the Corps said it would not address sea level rise because it was too complicated to do so.

As importantly, despite a statutory mandate to consider non structural approaches to project planning, the Corps rarely recommends such approaches. This is true even where such approaches could provide the same or better project benefits. The Corps instead relies heavily on its traditional approaches of straight jacketing rivers with levees and floodwalls. These types of projects sever critical connections between rivers and their wetlands and floodplains, and lead to significant coastal and floodplain wetland losses. These approaches have left coastal communities, like New Orleans, far more vulnerable, and have exacerbated flood damages by inducing development in high risk, flood prone areas and by increasing downstream flooding.

Nonstructural approaches should be used whenever possible as they avoid damage to healthy rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands that can help buffer the increased storms and flooding that we are seeing as a result of climate change. These systems protect against flooding and storm surge by acting as natural sponges and basins that absorb flood waters and act as barriers between storm surges and homes, buildings, and people. Healthy streams and wetlands also help minimize the impacts of drought by recharging groundwater supplies and filtering pollutants from drinking water. Protecting these resources also provides a host of additional benefits, including providing critical habitat for fish and wildlife, and exceptional recreational opportunities.

Hurricane Katrina showed us the tragic consequences of an intense storm running head on into a badly degraded wetlands system and faulty Corps project planning. Coastal wetlands lost to Corps projects were not available to buffer the Hurricane's storm surge before it slammed into the city. One Corps project, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, funneled the storm surge into the heart of New Orleans. Corps projects in New Orleans also were not designed to address the increased sea level rise or land subsidence, and were not strong enough to withstand the type of storm that scientists say may become all too common.

I am committed to ensuring that future Corps planning does not repeat the mistakes of the past, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight as we consider future WRDA bills. Corps project planning must account for the realities of climate change, and protect the natural systems that can buffer its affects.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source