    [Senate Hearing 111-1249]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 111-1249

     WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT: LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY PROPOSALS TO
     BENEFIT THE ECONOMY, CREATE JOBS, PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY AND MAINTAIN
                    AMERICA'S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 17, 2010

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    24-700 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               NOVEMBER 17, 2010
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     1
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     2
    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     4
    Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.....     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Woodruff, Matt, Director, Government Affairs, Kirby Corporation..     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    43
        Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe.......    44
    Weakley, James H.I., President, Lake Carriers' Association.......    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    56
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    57
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    57
    Verigin, Stephen W., P.E, G.E., Vice President, GEI Consultants,
      Inc., and Member, National Committee on Levee Safety...........    59
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer

            Senator Carper...........................................   184
            Senator Cardin...........................................   188
            Senator Inhofe...........................................   192
    Roth, Lawrence, Senior Vice President, ARCADIS U.S., Inc.........   217
        Prepared statement...........................................   219
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........   230
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   231
            Senator Cardin...........................................   232
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................   234
        Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe.......   238

     WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT: LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY PROPOSALS TO
     BENEFIT THE ECONOMY, CREATE JOBS, PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY AND MAINTAIN
                    AMERICA'S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
    (Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Cardin, Vitter, and
    Merkley.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. Good morning, everybody. I wanted to start
    this exactly on the nose--hello, Senator Inhofe--because we
    have a couple of votes starting at 11. So we want to get
    through this. I think we can, because we only have one
    distinguished panel with us, very important panel.
        Today's hearing will examine proposals for maintaining our
    ports, keeping our waterways open for commerce, protecting our
    citizens from storms and floods, and restoring our most
    precious ecosystems. This is the second hearing held by the EPW
    Committee as we continue to develop the next Water Resources
    Development Act. The projects included in WRDA are vitally
    important to keeping our communities safe and our economy
    moving forward.
        Prior to 2007 WRDA had not been passed in 7 years. But we
    built overwhelming bipartisan support, Senator Inhofe and I, in
    the Senate to enact the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
    over President Bush's veto. That bill allowed many critical
    projects across the country to proceed. And if we are going to
    grow America, we have to make sure we keep up with the
    infrastructure. That is the bottom line.
        I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe again and
    colleagues on both sides of this aisle to develop the next
    Water Resources Development Act. The projects, the policies,
    the programs authorized in WRDA are essential components of
    creating jobs and keeping our economy growing. For example,
    today we will hear about proposals to increase investment in
    our Nation's ports and inland waterway navigation channels.
    Ensuring our port and inland waterway infrastructure is
    adequately maintained is critical to the Nation's economic
    success. According to the Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 U.S.
    ports handled over $1.6 trillion in foreign commerce, and U.S.
    ports and waterways moved nearly 2.5 billion tons of cargo.
        Maintaining our ports is especially important in my home
    State. The Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Port of
    Oakland are among the top 10 ports in the Nation by the amount
    of container cargo shipped. These and many other important
    California ports support economic activity representing
    hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars
    across this entire Nation because those goods are transported
    to the port and then they go from the port across the entire
    Nation.
        Past WRDA bills have authorized projects to build and
    maintain ports across the country. Now we must ensure we invest
    in these projects so our ports are properly maintained and
    continue to support the billions of dollars of commerce and
    thousands of jobs that depend on them all across the country. A
    bipartisan group of Senators has introduced legislation to
    ensure that revenues collected for harbor maintenance
    activities are invested in our ports. I support these efforts,
    and I believe increasing investment in harbor maintenance
    should be a focus of our next WRDA bill.
        Our witnesses today will also discuss steps we can take to
    improve the safety of the Nation's thousands of miles of
    levees. How critical is that? As we write the next WRDA bill,
    improving the Nation's levees will be one of our top
    priorities. In California, many communities such as Sacramento
    face considerable flood risk and they rely on the levees for
    protection. We know what happens when levees fail. We have seen
    it, we will never forget it, and we want to avoid that.
        WRDA is needed to allow critical enhancements to the levees
    surrounding Sacramento's Natomas Basin to move forward. In WRDA
    2007 we established a national Committee on Levee Safety. We
    directed that committee to develop recommendations for a
    national levee safety program. The Committee's recommendations
    called for comprehensive and consistent national leadership on
    levee safety, strong levee safety programs in all of our
    States, and alignment of existing Federal programs. These are
    important goals that the next WRDA bill can help to achieve.
        Investment in the Nation's WRDA resources, creating jobs
    and providing benefits to America's families and businesses
    every day, is crucial. Moving forward on WRDA would provide the
    opportunity to advance important projects and programs, create
    jobs, and promote our long-term prosperity, not to mention our
    competitiveness as a Nation in a global work marketplace.
        So I would like to call on Senator Inhofe now.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It surprises a
    lot of people when they hear me say it is good to be back with
    you, but it is. It upsets people no end when they find out that
    the person who is ranked as the most conservative member of the
    U.S. Senate really likes the most liberal member of the U.S.
    Senate, and we have a lot of things in common.
        I used to say that while I am ranked as the most
    conservative, there are some areas where I am a big spender.
    One is national defense, one is infrastructure, and one is
    unfunded mandates. Well, infrastructure and unfunded mandates
    are a product of this, and we are in agreement on that.
        So we are anxious together, I think every member of this
    Committee, the Republicans and the Democrats working together,
    to have another WRDA bill. As the Chairman mentioned, when we
    had our 2007 bill it had been just years since we had had one
    before, and we need to get it done this year. I don't think we
    will be able to do it this month or this year, but I think we
    will when we come back into session. That is my personal
    feeling.
        A lot of people are not aware of the fact, we are going to
    be dealing, of course, with some of the harbor things, the
    inland waterways, that Oklahoma, my State of Oklahoma, is
    probably the most inland port in America. People are not aware
    of that. They think of Maryland and other States as having all
    these ports, or California. But the McClellan-Kerr waterway
    system is kind of interesting because it was started by my
    father-in-law with Governor Bob Kerr. I was there at the
    breaking of all this, and when President Johnson came in, I was
    there at that time. A lot of people have said, well, that is a
    boondoggle. Well, maybe they called it that, but it is sure
    working today. We have just thousands of people working out
    there.
        One of the things I think should be changed is, when we
    have this harbor fund, this trust fund, they have taken a
    portion of that and put it to debt reduction. To me, this is
    kind of a moral issue. I said the same thing back in 1998, when
    President Clinton took out of the Highway Trust Fund about, I
    can't remember the exact amount, $8 billion or $9 billion. It
    took us 10 years to get that back, but we did. And that
    overcame a crisis that we are facing. So I think it is exactly
    the same thing, what we are facing here.
        So on the issues that are coming up, I am very anxious to
    get started with this thing. We will be working hand in hand,
    and hopefully it will get done.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing, and
    thank you to all the witnesses for joining us this morning.
    We've been trying to hold this hearing for several months now,
    and I'm happy it's finally happening.
        The Chairman and I have worked together to develop a Water
    Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2010, but it looks like we
    are not going to have enough time to finish it this Congress. I
    hope to continue working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure we
    pass a WRDA next year.
        At our first WRDA hearing in May we heard from witnesses
    who spoke of the short- and long-term economic benefits of
    investments in our water resources infrastructure. Today's
    hearing will focus on legislative and policy recommendations
    for the next WRDA, including levee safety, investment in our
    inland waterways system, and maintenance of our ports and
    harbors.
        As anyone who has heard me speak before about
    infrastructure well knows, I strongly support Federal
    investment in public infrastructure. In fact I believe it is
    one of two areas where the Federal Government should spend
    money, the other being national defense, of course. We have
    significant water resources needs across the country, but we
    aren't dedicating the funds necessary to address them.
        Let me be clear, though, that I am not advocating for
    simply increasing overall spending. Instead, I support making
    infrastructure spending a greater percentage of overall
    spending. I look forward to discussing how we can do that with
    the witnesses here today.
        WRDA 2007 included establishment of a committee on levee
    safety, to be composed of Federal, State, local, tribal, and
    private sector experts and charged with making recommendations
    on how best to structure a national levee safety program. In
    January 2009 that committee made public a report with a number
    of recommendations that I believe deserve further discussion.
    It is important that we get a program started soon, but also
    important to make sure we don't rush through the numerous and
    complex issues involved and that a national levee safety
    program does not set unrealistic expectations for levels of
    Federal funding.
        Moving to the topic of the inland waterways system, I know
    I've used this example before, but it bears repeating: the
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System is very
    important to the national economy and to the economy of my home
    State. Currently the Tulsa Port of Catoosa alone is the
    location of more than 60 companies employing nearly 3,000
    employees. We must figure out a way to continue investing in
    this important aspect of our economy.
        The Inland Waterways Users Board, working with the Corps of
    Engineers, undertook a thorough review of the current process
    used for investing in our system. The Board developed a
    comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at not just
    increasing our investments but also at making any level of
    investment more efficient and effective. Many of these
    recommendations may be appropriate for inclusion in the next
    WRDA.
        Maintenance of our ports and harbors is unfortunately
    another underfunded activity. I can understand the frustration
    on this issue since a specific tax is collected to be used to
    fund these activities. Instead, approximately half of yearly
    revenues are spent as intended while the rest is counted as
    offsetting the deficit. That is not fair or honest, especially
    when so much maintenance is left unfunded.
        I do have a concern with the legislation introduced to
    address this issue, however, and that is that it likely would
    lead to decreased funding for other activities of the Corps
    that are already underfunded as well. If we can find a way to
    address the needs of our ports without negatively impacting our
    other water resources needs, I would be very supportive.
        Before I finish, I want to acknowledge all the work done so
    far. I know that a lot of people have put a great deal of time
    and effort into studying these three issues and developing
    recommendations. I want to say thank you to everyone involved.
    We still have some work to do, but I look forward to continuing
    to work together with my colleagues, the witnesses, and their
    colleagues to address these issues during development of the
    next Water Resources Development Act.

        Senator Boxer. Well, I think it is going to get done. And
    one of the reasons will be, certainly, the support of our
    colleagues. One of them is here, Senator Cardin.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Let me thank our Chairman and our Ranking
    Member because I do believe the Water Resources Development Act
    is one of the most important bills that we can get done. I hope
    we can get this done early next year, because I think it is
    very important to get the predictability on water
    infrastructure projects. We will be talking today about levees
    and dams. We also will be talking about the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Trust Fund. I think some of the
    issues that my Chairman and Ranking Member have raised are very
    important for us to deal with.
        Let me just point out, I think this bill is critically
    important for jobs in our community. It is about jobs, it is
    about creating more opportunities for Americans to work. In my
    own State of Maryland, I am going to be talking a great deal
    about the dredging projects and the impact it has on Maryland's
    economy. I can talk about the Chesapeake Bay, and I can also
    talk about the ports that are located in Maryland. The
    Chesapeake Bay has a considerable amount of erosion and
    sediment that adds to the needs for the dredging funding to be
    predictable and to deal with dredging our waterways.
        The Port of Baltimore has 126 miles of shipping channel.
    That is a real challenge. The Port of Baltimore is one of our
    most busy ports in our Nation. It ranks first in handling
    trucks, roll-on, roll-off cargo such as automobiles, trucking
    trailers, and freight cars. It ranks first in gypsum, sugar,
    and iron ore. It is the country's second largest automobile
    exporter and nationally ranked 12th in total value of foreign
    cargo handled. So dredging of our shipping lanes is critically
    important to the economic strength of our entire region and our
    Nation in regards to the Port of Baltimore.
        But what you may not be aware of is that we have other
    ports that are equally important to our regional economy. The
    Port of Salisbury, critically important for the energy of the
    DelMarVa peninsula, critically important for the farming
    interests in the DelMarVa peninsula.
        Then in regard to levees, Madam Chair, let me just point
    out, we have six federally funded levees that are in Maryland
    that are critically important for flood control. In western
    Maryland they are particularly vulnerable. And the safety of
    our levees is important. I want to make sure that we have
    adequately funded maintenance and repair of our levees, which I
    think today is--all surveys show that we are not doing enough
    in order to do that.
        In the interest of time, Madam Chair, I am going to ask
    that my entire statement be made a part of the record so we
    have maximum opportunity to hear from our witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]

                     Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland

        Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
    The Water Resource Development Act is one of the most important
    public works laws that we consider. I am happy to have the
    opportunity today to address some of the critical economic
    issues associated with our water resources infrastructure.
        Today's witnesses will discuss some of the specific funding
    mechanisms used to support our water resources infrastructure.
    We'll hear about levees and locks and dams. We'll hear about
    the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways
    Trust Fund.
        While the specific points our witnesses will be making will
    vary, there will be a common theme throughout today's hearing,
    and that is jobs. The economic importance of a robust water
    resources infrastructure for America is vital to creating and
    maintaining jobs all across this country.
        Maryland has a geography and topography which makes the
    Chesapeake Bay particularly susceptible to the adverse effects
    of erosion. This erosion contributes to 5 millions of cubic
    yards of sediment deposited annually into the bay, adversely
    affecting water quality, destroying valuable wetlands and
    habitat, and clogging navigation channels.
        Every year the Corps clears tons of eroded sediment from
    the Federal navigation channels that lead into and out of the
    Port of Baltimore. Keeping this port open and the channels
    dredged is essential not just for Maryland, but for the Nation.
        The Port of Baltimore is an enormous economic engine for
    Maryland with national significance. There are 126 miles of
    shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore. In 2008
    approximately 47.5 million tons of cargo, including 33 million
    tons of foreign cargo valued at $45.3 billion, and
    approximately 14.5 million tons of domestic waterborne cargo
    moved through the Port of Baltimore.
        Among the 360 U.S. ports, Baltimore is ranked No. 1 for
    handling:
         Trucks
         Roll on/roll off cargo (i.e. automobiles, trucking
    trailers, and freight cars),
         Imported forest products,
         Gypsum, sugar, and iron ore, and
         it is the country's second largest automobile exporter
    and
         is nationally ranked 12th in total value of foreign cargo
    handled.
        The Maryland Port Administration estimates that the Port
    generates 50,700 jobs in Maryland with $3.7 billion in wages
    and salaries. Additionally, there are approximately 68,300
    related and indirect jobs associated with Port activities.
        At the local level, Maryland puts the Bay's dredge material
    to good use on coastal habitat, beach, and island restoration
    projects.
        The Port of Baltimore is one of America's greatest ports,
    supporting an incredible array of jobs. But it is not the only
    port in a State that has more miles of shoreline than the
    entire west coast of America.
        Salisbury is a relatively small city and an unexpected
    place for Maryland's second busiest port. Located 30 miles
    inland from the Chesapeake Bay, the port of Salisbury is vital
    to the entire DelMarVa peninsula. Fuel oil, diesel, and other
    petroleum products are delivered daily in some of the hundreds
    of barges that are the backbone of the port.
        Farmers need the port to move corn and soybeans to market.
    Shale, sand, and aggregates move up and down the Wicomico
    River, supporting thousands of jobs in the construction
    industry.
        Maryland is home to scores of other ports, many of them
    tiny operations that support our independent watermen--the men
    and women who make their living crabbing or oystering the
    Chesapeake's waters.
        Before I close, I want to mention one other issue.
        There are six major federally constructed levee systems in
    Maryland consisting of miles of earthen levees and structural
    floodwalls. In the past the Potomac River presented a potential
    flood threat to the residents of Cumberland, in western
    Maryland. But the Cumberland Flood Control Project has done an
    outstanding job of lessening the threat of future flooding.
    This levee system protects 400 businesses and 178 households.
    And it saves all of them the extra expense of purchasing
    Federal flood insurance.
        As the economic recovery continues to struggle to take
    hold, the last thing these businesses and families need is to
    be hit with a big increase in insurance premiums.
        This morning we will be hearing about some funding issues
    and the continuing challenges that we face in making the
    necessary investments in our water infrastructure. I want to
    underscore that each of these issues relates back to our No. 1
    priority: creating and sustaining jobs.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and
    working with my colleagues on the latest reauthorization of
    WRDA.

        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
        I am pleased to call on Senator Vitter.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to all
    the witnesses for being here. I certainly agree, this is an
    important discussion and an important topic and goal for the
    Nation, certainly including my State of Louisiana, which is
    full of vital waterways for commerce.
        I, too, want to focus on some of the key issues starting
    with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We have faced this
    perennial problem that while trust fund revenue is healthy and
    the trust fund balance in theory is growing, Administration
    after Administration--whether it is Republican or Democrat--
    basically won't touch much of that money as really a game to
    mask the budget deficit and artificially lower the budget
    deficit by not using that money for the purposes that it is
    dedicated to.
        So I am a leading co-author and a very strong advocate of
    3213 to change that in a way generally similar to the reforms
    Congress has brought in the past to other trust funds, like the
    Transportation Trust Fund.
        Also, as we all know, there is a very important proposal
    put together by industry, working hand in glove with the Corps
    of Engineers on the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, so that we
    actually move forward and complete these projects, and they
    don't languish forever with costs rising year by year. That is
    a very serious proposal. I am just digesting it now, but I hope
    we all look very hard at that.
        There are numerous dredging issues around the country that
    aren't adequately dealt with. Perhaps the most serious in my
    neck of the woods is Mississippi River dredging. A huge part of
    our Nation's commerce is dependent on that. And yet constantly
    we are slowing down traffic, we are actually slowing down or
    short-waiting commerce because of inadequate dredging in the
    Southwest Pass and other key parts of the lower Mississippi
    River. That is all related to this discussion.
        And then certainly to pick up on something Senator Cardin
    mentioned, levee safety. Nobody has learned more about levee
    safety than folks in Louisiana for obvious reasons. But it is a
    national issue. And the National Levee Safety Program, 5 years
    after Hurricane Katrina, after the National Committee on Levee
    Safety published its report in 2009, 20 recommendations, none
    of that has been implemented yet. So I think that is an
    important national concern that we also need to address.
        So I look forward to moving forward on all of these and
    other important fronts.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much, Senator.
        We are now going to get through this in an hour. We have
    four very important witnesses. Mr. Matt Woodruff is the
    Director, Government Affairs, at Kirby Corporation, on behalf
    of the Inland Waterways Users Board. Mr. Jim Weakley, President
    of the Lake Carriers' Association.
        Mr. Steve Verigin, he is Vice President, GEI Consultants,
    Inc., and member, National Committee on Levee Safety. I wanted
    to mention, based in Sacramento. So I wanted to personally
    welcome you here. He also serves as a member of the National
    Committee on Levee Safety. And he will be testifying today
    about the committee's recommendations. He has three decades of
    experience in the management of water resources and previously
    served as the Deputy Director of the California Department of
    Water Resources. So water is his middle name.
        And we have Mr. Lawrence Roth, who is also based in
    Sacramento, Senior Vice President of ARCADIS U.S., Inc.,
    testifying in behalf of the American Society of Civil
    Engineers, where he previously served as the Executive Vice
    President for nearly a decade. Mr. Roth has had an extensive
    career as a professional engineer working on a variety of water
    resources issues.
        So our panel is just terrific, and we are going to listen
    to you and ask you some questions. We will start with Mr.
    Woodruff, Director, Government Affairs, Kirby Corporation, on
    behalf of the Inland Waters Users Board.
        Welcome, sir.

                 STATEMENT OF MATT WOODRUFF, DIRECTOR,
                 GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, KIRBY CORPORATION

        Mr. Woodruff. Thank you.
        Inland Waterway Users are not asking for a list of new
    project authorizations in WRDA. What we want is a new process
    that will help us build our projects quicker and more
    economically. At a time when everyone is focused on the economy
    and jobs, inland waterways are a great value for our Nation,
    essential to our continued competitiveness.
        As mentioned, I am a member of the Inland Waterway Users
    Board and was a part of the group of Users Board members who
    worked for about a year and a half with the Corps of Engineers
    to develop a comprehensive strategy to recapitalize our inland
    waterway system. This Committee knows that our waterways safely
    and efficiently move vast quantities of the building blocks
    upon which this Nation's economy is built: grain, steel, coal,
    petroleum, chemicals, fertilizers. They allow our farmers and
    our factories in the heartland to reach markets across the
    world.
        On November 3rd President Obama told the Nation, ``The most
    important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats
    and Republicans. In this century, the most important
    competition we face is between America and our economic
    competitors around the world.'' Our inland waterways help
    America face that international competition and win.
        If we want to double exports we have to have a way to get
    those exports to market. The waterways have the capacity to do
    that that cannot be matched by our other modes of
    transportation.
        What is at stake if we turn our back on the waterways? If
    we are prepared to turn off the lights in portions of America,
    stop feeding the world, cripple our manufacturing base and
    deprive consumers of essential goods and services, then we can
    stop worrying about the waterways. We can move America's cargo
    without the waterways, but not until we incur billions in the
    costs that it would take to provide highway and rail
    infrastructure to do the job. Not just billions of dollars, but
    we could also measure that cost in lives lost in highway and
    rail accidents, added energy consumption, additional pollutants
    in our atmosphere, congestion delays, and lost competitiveness.
    The waterways make sense for America.
        Many people focus just on the transportation benefits of
    the waterway system, but they sell our system short when they
    do so. Our system provides stable pools of water for
    industrial, municipal, and agricultural use. It provides
    recreational opportunities and enhances property values along
    the waterfronts. Our Nation reaps billions in benefits each
    year from the non-transportation uses of our inland waterways.
        A moment ago I mentioned a comprehensive strategy to
    recapitalize our inland waterway system that was developed by a
    joint Corps-industry team. The report has been out for some 6
    months now, and we have heard some questions and concerns about
    the plan. So I would like to devote my remaining time today to
    tell you some of the things that the plan is and some of what
    it is not.
        It is comprehensive. It is prioritized, and it is long-
    term. But it is not all or nothing or take it or leave it. It
    doesn't usurp the prerogatives of Congress, nor does it bind
    Congress to multi-year commitments.
        It is a 20-year plan. It looks forward based on what we
    know today, but it doesn't lock us onto a particular path for
    20 years. We recognize that there will be changes over time, so
    we established an objective framework that will allow the most
    critical projects to come to the top of the list. We envision
    reconvening the Corps-industry team on a regular basis to
    review and update the plan as needed. And every year, Congress
    will have the opportunity to exercise its authority to review
    the recommendations and choose the path forward.
        It does call for a reliable funding stream that will keep
    construction moving forward efficiently.
        We do strongly urge that we first finish what we started,
    then move down the list and only build as many projects at a
    time as we can afford to efficiently fund. In general, once we
    start a project we need to finish it. Otherwise we waste money.
    However, Congress will always have the prerogative to make
    adjustments when the circumstances warrant.
        We recommended a series of process changes to help ensure
    that the projects are completed on time and on budget. The
    Corps is moving ahead with many of these improvements, so we
    will see some benefits in the coming years.
        But to get the full benefit of the efficiencies that are
    possible, we need Congress and the Administration to support a
    comprehensive set of changes such as we have described in our
    report. Over 200 organizations have endorsed the plan. It will
    give us 25 finished projects in the next 20 years instead of 6
    under the status quo. We hope this Committee will help us make
    a comprehensive capital development plan a reality.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Woodruff follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much for that.
        Mr. Jim Weakley, President, Lake Carriers' Association.
        Welcome, sir.

              STATEMENT OF JAMES H.I. WEAKLEY, PRESIDENT,
                       LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Weakley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Representing Lake Carriers' Association, Great Lakes
    Maritime Task Force, and the National Coalition, I will be
    focusing on Government trust, jobs, and marine transportation.
    All are vital to America's future.
        Ships enable global and domestic trade. Unfortunately, our
    waterways--the very arteries of coastal infrastructure--barely
    survive a diet of neglect. Our ports fill with sediment faster
    than man or nature can sustain.
        Members of this Committee, Senators Crapo, Klobuchar,
    Vitter, and Voinovich have taken the first step to end the
    national dredging crisis by co-sponsoring S. 3213. Thank you.
        Restoring the trust in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    benefits all four of our Nation's coasts. California importers,
    Montana and Wyoming coal miners, Oklahoma ranchers, Idaho
    farmers, and Pennsylvania exporters depend on efficient water-
    borne transportation to receive goods, move products to market
    and expand their horizons. Marine transportation moves a ton of
    cargo farther, producing fewer emissions than other modes. Our
    Nation's ports handle 2.5 billion tons of domestic and
    international cargo annually, imports and exports worth more
    than $5.5 billion a day. Ports employ over 13.3 million
    Americans, 9 percent of our total work force. Jobs paying $649
    billion in 2007. One billion dollars in exports creates 15,000
    new jobs. Our ports keep America open for business.
        We do it by employing economies of scale. One laker can
    carry as much as 2,800 trucks. And the laws of physics
    requiring less horsepower to move a ton of cargo. If trucks
    were as efficient as ships, they would only need a lawnmower
    engine.
        A lack of dredging forces light loading. For every inch of
    depth lost, lakers forfeit 270 tons of cargo. For each inch
    silted in, American lakers leave 8,000 tons of Minnesota ore in
    Duluth, enough to manufacture 6,000 cars. We leave enough
    Montana or Wyoming coal behind to produce 3 hours of Detroit's
    electricity, or we abandon enough stone for 24 Ohio homes.
        Tragically, losses are measured in feet. The impacts are
    system-wide. This inefficiency makes American products more
    expensive and exports jobs. Dunkirk's port closed in 2005. More
    will follow. Similar problems exist on our other coasts. A
    Corps study estimates 30 percent of the 95,000 vessel calls at
    U.S. ports were limited by inadequate channels.
        Tributaries to the Great Lakes naturally deposit more than
    3.3 million cubic yards of sediment per year. However, only
    once in the past decade has an Administration proposed enough
    money to remove it. An annual investment of $82 million by
    industry via the fund, and $6 million by the Treasury results
    in a transportation rate savings of $3.6 billion.
        On a per-ton basis, the investment of 50 cents results in a
    payback of $41. And the 3 cents that taxpayers invest returns
    $590.
        Established in 1986, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    collects a tax on cargo value. Industry payments exceed fund
    expenditures. In 2009, $1.3 billion was collected. However,
    only $800 million was expended. Most harbors are left high and
    dry. Annually, we contribute hundreds of millions to this trust
    gap. The fund surplus is $5.1 billion.
        S. 3213 is a solution. Modeled after legal fixes for air
    and highway trusts, it balances annual fund revenues and
    expenditures. Basing future expenditures on future revenues,
    the bill doesn't score or violate the pay as you go rule.
    Future budgets should reduce earmarks for ports abandoned by
    the Administration. Based on AIR-21's results, the top line of
    the Corps' budget should increase. If it had been in place for
    2010, harbor maintenance would have increased by hundreds of
    millions, yet a mere 2 percent of the energy and water
    appropriations.
        I respectfully ask you to pass WRDA and incorporate the
    Harbor Maintenance Act. We need to revive our dying
    infrastructure with the angioplasty of dredging, maintain it
    with a healthy diet. It is a matter of trust.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weakley follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Well said.
        Mr. Steve Verigin, we welcome you to talk about levee
    safety or whatever other issues you want.

     STATEMENT OF STEPHEN W. VERIGIN, P.E., G.E., VICE PRESIDENT,
    GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., AND MEMBER, NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEVEE
                                 SAFETY

        Mr. Verigin. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
        Today I would like to describe the immediate need for
    establishing a national levee safety program and how that
    program would strengthen the current work to upgrade the levee
    system in California, a State with one of the Nation's highest
    flood risks and the one with which I am most familiar.
        The National Committee on Levee Safety was convened in 2008
    at the direction of Congress and mostly comprised of non-
    Federal members. Through our work we have learned that our
    levee safety reality is unfortunately filled with risk and
    uncertainty. We don't know how many miles of levees there are
    in the United States. There may be as many as 100,000 miles of
    non-Federal levels in addition to the 14,000 miles of Corps-
    owned and operated levees that are currently being inventoried.
        There are no national levee engineering standards. Our
    flood risk is growing due to aging structures, lack of proper
    maintenance, increasing development behind levees, and a lack
    of adequate funding for remediation. Many communities and
    citizens are unaware of their flood risk and believe that they
    will be protected for any size flood. And even our best levees
    that protect against a 100-year flood have a high chance--1 in
    4--to experience a flood larger than that during a 30-year
    mortgage.
        To address this reality the committee made 20 specific
    recommendations. A national levee safety program will be a
    long-term investment, moving us from a reactive disaster
    assistance environment to a proactive, safety-oriented culture.
    The committee believes the need is urgent and is grateful that
    you are considering a national program in the next WRDA.
        We understand that in these difficult economic times it is
    not feasible to immediately implement all the recommendations
    in the strategic report. It is, however, timely that we take
    action so that we don't lose the momentum, efforts, and
    accomplishments that we realized from the now not so recent
    events of Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans.
        The 2009 report to Congress proposed a phased schedule for
    implementation. In keeping with that strategy we would like to
    propose the highest recommendations as inclusion in the next
    WRDA. First, to expand and maintain the national levee data
    base by conducting an inventory and inspection of all levees in
    the United States, namely, those outside of the U.S. Army
    Corps' of Engineers authorities.
        Establish a national levee safety program likely embedded
    in an existing Federal agency. Develop national levee safety
    standards, including tolerable risk guidelines and a hazard
    potential classification system, and swiftly address growing
    concerns regarding liability for damages resulting from levee
    failures. This is important, as there is concern that States
    will be reluctant to take on levee safety programs for fear of
    additional liability.
        Furthermore, we think that WRDA should authorize the
    implementation of the next highest priorities, and that would
    be to design and incentivize the development of State levee
    safety programs and to establish the National Levee
    Rehabilitation Improvement and Flood Mitigation Fund.
        For the past 6 months the committee has been soliciting
    feedback from a variety of stakeholders. We have received the
    following major comments. A complete national inventory of all
    levees is all necessary to understand the Nation's risk and
    effectively prioritize program needs. A national levee safety
    program should support good flood risk management. A national
    levee safety program should simplify, streamline, and align
    State, Federal, and local programs. Funding for remediation of
    existing aging and deficient levees is needed and necessary to
    attract State and local government to a national program.
        Some stakeholders are concerned over the impacts of
    requiring risk-based insurance, and there needs to be more
    dialog to ensure that needed operation, maintenance, and
    repairs can occur in a timely fashion without compromising
    environmental regulations.
        I would like to complete this testimony by describing some
    of the specifics in California and how the new program would
    apply. California's Central Valley is one of the Nation's
    largest Federal levee systems, 1,600 miles in length with
    generally fragile levees, not up to the task of protecting the
    600,000 people and $50 billion of infrastructure behind them.
    At the downstream end of the system lies the Sacramento-San
    Joaquin Delta, also with many fragile levees vulnerable to
    earthquake damage that would severely interrupt the water
    delivery to 24 million Californians. And Sacramento, in the
    heart of the Central Valley, is the Nation's leading major city
    that is at most risk of a New Orleans-type flooding event.
    Consequently, California voters approved $4.9 billion in State
    funds, mostly for Central Valley region.
        Implementation of a national levee safety program will
    greatly assist California in inventorying and assessing the
    condition of all of the State's estimated 14,000 miles of
    levees. By having national standards, rehabilitation and
    improvement projects will be designed and constructed
    consistent with Corps, FEMA and other flood management
    agencies. The National Levee Safety Program will provide the
    leadership that will guide the State toward achieving future
    compliance for projects currently underway in formulating the
    future California State levee safety program.
        In recent years California has developed the capability to
    construct major flood repair and improvement projects with
    funding from State bonds and local property assessments.
    However, the $4.9 billion in State bond funds is not adequate
    to meet all of the need. California is well-poised to utilize
    funding from the National Levee Rehabilitation Improvement and
    Flood Mitigation Fund to complete the job.
        To reinforce the urgent need for establishing a national
    levee safety program, I have attached news clips from the
    recent Iowa flooding in August and the Wisconsin flooding in
    September. Both events caused severe damage and levee failures
    and remind us that we should not grow complacent.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Verigin follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Verigin.
        And Mr. Roth, again, welcome to you, speaking on behalf of
    the American Society of Civil Engineers. Welcome.

      STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE ROTH, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ARCADIS
                               U.S., INC.

        Mr. Roth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My name is Larry Roth, and I am a project manager for
    ARCADIS in Sacramento. The firm is currently the independent
    consultant for review of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan for
    California's Delta Stewardship Council. I am a civil and
    geotechnical engineer, specializing in water resources. I have
    worked on the design and construction of more than 50 major
    dams throughout California and the U.S.
        I am pleased to appear before you to day to testify on
    behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers on the need
    for a Water Resources Development Act in 2010. ASE's 2009
    Report Card for America's Infrastructure shows that decades of
    under-funding and inattention have jeopardized the ability of
    our Nation's infrastructure to support our economy and our
    quality of life. The report card assumed a cumulative grade of
    D to the Nation's infrastructure. It noted that a 5-year
    investment of $2.2 trillion from all levels of Government and
    the private sector was needed to bring our infrastructure into
    good condition. About half that sum will be available with
    present Federal, State, and local spending, leaving an
    infrastructure investment gap of about $1.1 trillion through
    2014.
        The Congressional Budget Office states that spending on
    infrastructure produces positive economic returns. The CBO
    notes that a recent study suggests that public capital enhances
    the economy's ability to produce goods and services to the
    extent that $1 spent on infrastructure generates close to $1 of
    output within 1 year. Current economic and political conditions
    notwithstanding, we all recognize that the path forward will be
    expensive. But Federal and local investments in essential
    public works can create jobs, provide for economic growth, and
    ensure public safety through modern, well-engineered national
    infrastructure.
        Levees received a D minus. More than 85 percent of the
    Nation's estimated 100,000 miles of levees are locally owned
    and maintained. The reliability of many of these levees is
    unknown. Many are more than 50 years old and were originally
    built to protect crop and farm land from flooding.
        Congress must move quickly to enact Federal legislation to
    protect the health and welfare of American citizens from the
    catastrophic effect of flooding and levee failures. The levee
    safety program should be modeled on the successful National Dam
    Safety Program. The Act should require that Federal and State
    governments conduct mandatory safety inspections for all levees
    and establish a national inventory.
        The National Flood Insurance program should map all areas
    potentially flooded by a levee breach and identify them as
    special flood areas to better communicate risk and encourage
    affected property owners to seek appropriate protection. The
    Committee should add S. 732, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair
    Act, as a separate title within WRDA 2010. Senator Akaka's bill
    would amend the National Dam Safety Program to provide a modest
    yet critical $200 million over the next 5 years for repairs and
    rehabilitation or removal of non-Federal, publicly owned, high
    hazard dams in the United States.
        The Committee should support legislation similar to H.R.
    5892, which contains a provision requiring that all
    appropriations from the trust fund each fiscal year should be
    equal to all revenues received by the fund in that year. In the
    face of the Corps' aging infrastructure need, the President's
    budget for a civil works program in fiscal year 2011 continues
    to reduce Federal investments in essential national civil works
    systems. The budget proposal totaled only $4.9 billion, a
    reduction of 9.3 percent from fiscal year 2010 enacted level of
    $5.4 billion. The Administration request represented a 51
    percent decrease from the fiscal year 2009 enacted total of $10
    billion through regular appropriations and the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This trend is not likely to
    improve in future years.
        ASE believes that these levels of spending are inadequate
    to meet the Nation's security as well as its economic and
    environmental demands for the 21st century.
        This concludes my testimony, Senator Boxer. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Roth follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Let me state that I am going to add myself today as a co-
    sponsor to the Levin bill, S. 2312. And the sponsors there
    include, in addition to Senator Levin, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
    Vitter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brown of
    Ohio, and Ms. Landrieu. This is a very bipartisan effort.
        I hope that--I haven't discussed this directly with Senator
    Inhofe, but I am hopeful that he will agree with us that we
    should put that bill straight into WRDA as a title, the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund, to ensure its use for harbor
    maintenance only. It just makes eminent sense. So I want you to
    know that that will be done today.
        I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
    letter from the California Marine Affairs and Navigation
    Conference on the need for increased investment in the
    California ports and expenditures of revenues collected in the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund on harbor maintenance activities.
    And I have just a couple of questions to ask. My time should be
    put at about 3 minutes now.
        I am very pleased to look forward to passing a WRDA bill.
    It is not only necessary for economic--well. I have shown
    photographs here of the Sacramento situation, which Mr. Verigin
    has described to us. So I am just going to submit a couple of
    questions for the record.
        [The referenced letter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. In addition to the 13 million jobs that the
    port industry supports and the $3.15 trillion in marine cargo-
    related spending, I am looking at the importance of averting a
    crisis. I want to talk about the levee safety program, which is
    another title that I intend to work with Senator Inhofe on
    putting in this bipartisan bill, this program to look at levee
    safety.
        I want to ask Mr. Verigin, can you expand on the benefits
    we can expect for cities across the country--including
    Sacramento as an example--if we move forward with a WRDA bill
    that begins to address the recommendations of the National
    Committee on Levee Safety, which is my intention?
        Mr. Verigin. Yes, thank you. The Natomas area in Sacramento
    is a good example and would apply to many cities across the
    country. It is a city that has levees that protect it that have
    gone from the purpose of protecting agricultural land to now a
    highly urbanized area. It is also an area with a system that
    has been subject to changing standards. Those levees weren't
    designed or constructed by the current standards that are
    required for the levee systems that protect urban areas, both
    in dimension, foundation, improvements, et cetera. Those design
    criteria continue to evolve. So a national program would
    standardize that type of criteria and make it uniform across
    the country.
        It is Federal levee system that is currently being--the
    improvement project is being funded by State and local funds.
    And the implementation of this program would hopefully
    streamline the process where in Federal, State, and local
    projects could be more expediently accomplished. It would allow
    the State's economy to continue to grow. California is a place
    where the population keeps coming. They are not waiting to see
    if the levees are safe to protect the areas. So it is an area
    that has already urban areas developed behind levees. So we
    have to upgrade them and protect the valuable investment that
    we already have.
        Last, it would definitely avoid the tremendous catastrophic
    loss that you mentioned. We are at great risk there. We have
    levees that are not up to 100-year standard. Most levees
    protecting areas of this importance would be 200- or 500-year
    level of protection.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Verigin.
        Before I turn to Senator Vitter, would you do me a favor?
    Would you send me a report that indicates how many of those
    levees have a Federal nexus and how many are State, local? If
    you could do that, that would be very helpful.
        Mr. Verigin. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Senator Vitter.
        Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of
    you again for great testimony.
        Mr. Woodruff, I wanted to ask you a couple of things about
    the Inland Waterways' proposal. The costs of these projects and
    this maintenance has been going through the roof. One way this
    proposal would obviously control that is by not allowing
    projects to languish forever, over decades, over which
    obviously costs go up and up and up.
        But apart from that time factor, are there other specific
    ways the proposal controls costs under Corps projects? I can
    tell you my experience in Louisiana, it is mostly on the flood
    and hurricane protection side; is that the same work up to the
    same standards overseen and done through the Corps process is
    much more expensive than overseen and done by State or local
    government. So there are other factors there besides time. How
    can we try to attack those other factors?
        Mr. Woodruff. The plan includes a number of things that we
    can do. Better planning, having a better understanding of what
    the project scope is, what the geotechnical requirements are
    before we come to Congress and seek authorization for a
    project, so that when we bring that project to you it will have
    a very high confidence level that the project can be brought in
    for the amount of money that you authorize that it be built
    for.
        There is project delivery improvements--some of which are
    already underway--to standardize some of the design features of
    locks and dams, to have centers of expertise that will allow us
    to develop some synergy and save money in terms of not having a
    lock designed in one place have components that are different
    than locks designed in another place. Modularity of design will
    also save money. Smoothing out the funding will have a great
    effect in terms of allowing those projects to be built at the
    most efficient way possible. To give an example would be the
    project on the East Bank, which has been done very quickly, on
    time and on budget. The money was there for it to be done, and
    as a consequence, it was done.
        Those are some of the things that we think can be done to
    ensure that these projects will cost the Nation less in the
    future. They must cost the Nation less in the future.
        Senator Vitter. OK. On both sets of fund proposals, the
    Corps has obviously been involved in the discussions. Can we
    expect the Corps/Administration to take an affirmative position
    in support of these proposals, and when will that happen?
        Mr. Woodruff. Well, from my perspective, the Users Board
    presented this to the Administration back in April, and we are
    still waiting to learn their position on it. We are eager to
    hear what that position will be. We think this is a sound plan
    that needs to move forward. Because we can't start gaining the
    benefits that are there to be gained until we do so.
        Senator Vitter. Do you realistically expect the Corps/
    Administration to take an affirmative position in support of
    it?
        Mr. Woodruff. I would certainly hope so. We worked very
    long and very hard with a lot of experts in the Corps to
    develop this plan. We think it is sound. We think it is the
    right path forward for the Nation.
        Senator Vitter. Mr. Weakley, what about the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund?
        Mr. Weakley. Senator, my experience will be the Corps will
    do what the Administration tell it to do publicly. I would hope
    they would affirmatively support this. The Corps can only do
    what they are given money to do. So I think, candidly, with the
    AIR-21 experience, their top line would increase. I don't see
    how the Corps could oppose it. I am not sure, once you get to
    the OMB level and above, whether the Administration would
    support this.
        Certainly, as you pointed out, sir, it is a fairness issue.
    I think also Senator Inhofe considered it a moral issue. If you
    are going to collect money for a reason, you ought to spend it
    on that reason.
        Senator Vitter. Right. I would encourage all of us to push
    the Corps and the Administration, and you are right, the
    ultimate decision will be made above the level of the Corps, to
    affirmatively support the proposals. Because it is a very
    common, frustrating experience of mine to work with the Corps
    on all sorts of language, and then when it comes to
    legislating, they are either nowhere to be seen or actively
    opposing the proposal with the key committee chairs or
    subcommittee chairs or whatever.
        So I think it is reasonable for us to ask them for a direct
    public position, hopefully in support of the proposals.
        Mr. Weakley. Yes, Senator. I would agree.
        Senator Vitter. And if I could just have one more, Madam
    Chair, for Mr. Verigin.
        Representing Louisiana, I am obviously all for levee
    safety. And clearly, certain standards have to be raised. But
    since Katrina I have also had the following experience, which
    is in some cases the Corps and others have proposed the
    perfect, and it has been the enemy of the good. In a sense,
    from the bureaucracy's perspective, from the Corps'
    perspective, the safest levee is the one that is never built.
    They almost in some cases have an interest in having standards
    so demanding and so perfect that lots of levees are never
    built. And the one levee that can never breach is the one that
    is never built.
        I am just wondering how we balance these interests, because
    I have experienced that as a real problem post-Katrina.
        Mr. Verigin. Yes, that is a balance that we struggle with
    all the time. I think we have to realize that these levees have
    evolved over 70 to 100 years. So while if today we could decide
    not to build or build out of the flood plain or setback or do
    many of the things that would keep people out of harm's way,
    that would be a wonderful thing to do. But that is not the
    situation that we are in. We have highly urbanized areas with
    levees protecting them.
        So we have to take measures to get those up to standards
    that are going to protect people. And that, too, has to be
    done, in my opinion, in balance over time. We can't afford to
    do everything we want to do right away. So we need to
    identify--and it is advocated through assessing our highest
    risks--where we need to improve things, how far we can go and
    to actually develop a plan that is going to take decades to
    move us from where we are today to where we want to be.
        Senator Vitter. And I just note that part of that is in
    that transition. In the meantime, I don't think it is fair to
    take the current FEMA and Corps position that a levee system
    that is a meaningful system but doesn't match the new 100-year
    whatever requirements are treated as if it doesn't exist for
    purposes of flood insurance.
        Mr. Verigin. Yes, that has been a singing to the choir
    problem that has caused communities to struggle across the
    Nation, and I think will continue to do so. But I think that
    the answer to that is to improve things with time.
        Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Roth. May I add something to Mr. Verigin's comments?
        Senator Boxer. Yes.
        Mr. Roth. I think this issue of risk is extremely
    important.
        Senator Boxer, I would like to just relate a personal
    experience.
        Senator Boxer. Sure.
        Mr. Roth. I have been here in the Washington, DC, area for
    the past decade with the American Society of Civil Engineers. I
    am moving back to California. And in this case, well, I am
    actually there now. But in the process of moving back to
    California, my family and I purchased a home in California and
    went through the process, knowing that it is one of the more
    flood risk-prone cities in the United States.
        Senator Boxer. Sacramento?
        Mr. Roth. Sacramento. Knowing full well that we wanted to
    avoid that as much as possible in the purchase of our own home.
    It is exceedingly difficult, particularly for an uninformed
    buyer, to find out what that level of risk might be for
    property that they are going to sink essentially their life
    savings into.
        I think it is extremely important for us to look at not
    only the levee safety issues and to provide the levels of
    protection, but to communicate them extremely clearly to the
    public. Because Senator Vitter, often the public is not
    informed that they are living behind a levee that may be
    substandard, that may not be able to protect them from a 100-
    year flood. And a substantial portion of their life's savings
    are being put at risk.
        The alternative is perhaps flood insurance. It may be a
    difficult pill to swallow, but maybe that is the right way to
    go. So we really must take a holistic approach to this. We have
    to provide a level of safety for people. But we then absolutely
    must communicate to them what that level of risk that they may
    be accepting is or is not.
        Senator Vitter. And Madam Chair, let me just say quickly, I
    don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is that
    the flood insurance program, acting as if a system which may be
    below, say, a 100-year level, doesn't exist. The current policy
    is to treat that as if there is nothing there. Clearly, there
    is something there that offers some mitigation.
        Senator Boxer. That is true of our flood insurance, isn't
    it, that it only address the 100-year.
        Senator Vitter. Right.
        Senator Boxer. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
    thank you all for your testimony today to highlight the
    importance of these projects. Along Oregon's coast, there are
    along 20 ports that provide employment, and they are part of a
    global supply chain and important sources of recreation and
    wildlife habitat. And of course these ports need consistent
    maintenance and repair schedules.
        By the Corps' own data, Oregon has nearly 200 communities
    and 24 counties with levees that will need recertification. I
    can hardly go to a town hall and not have someone speak about
    the challenges to the community from the recertification
    process, the changes therein, particularly on communities of
    modest size facing extraordinary expenses under the changes in
    recertification process.
        Mr. Woodruff, I wanted to ask you about the inland marine
    transportation system capital investment strategy team's
    proposal. How would you prioritize the annual investment across
    the inland water system of the U.S.? The highest needs may not
    be in communities that can afford a match. How do you tackle
    that problem?
        Mr. Woodruff. The match in this case comes from the fuel
    taxes paid by the industry across the entire system. So the
    communities wouldn't be asked for a match. What we look at is
    the system as a national whole, and we prioritize on the basis
    of the risk of failure and the economic impact that would be
    associated with it. Then we use the resources of the Inland
    Waterway Trust Fund collected across the entirety of the system
    to address those needs.
        Senator Merkley. Can you give us a sense of how the jobs
    created per dollar of investment compare to other investments
    around the country?
        Mr. Woodruff. I don't know that I can necessarily give you
    a comparison. But I think it is important to recognize that we
    are not just looking at the jobs we create by building and
    maintaining the infrastructure, but the jobs that we sustain
    and maintain through the low cost transportation opportunities
    that the system provides to us. For example, in the case of
    agriculture we have competitors in South America. The price
    that the Chinese or other consumers want to pay is the price
    delivered to their doorstep. Our inland waterway system allows
    us to provide the lowest cost delivered to our customers, and
    therefore that sustains not just the jobs building and
    maintaining locks but the farmers and all those who support the
    farmers.
        Senator Merkley. And with substantial energy savings as
    well.
        Mr. Woodruff. Absolutely.
        Senator Merkley. Which is a big plus.
        Mr. Weakley, your testimony highlighted the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund surplus, and the HMTF collected $1.3
    billion in 2009. Yet only $808 million was reimbursed through
    regular appropriations. Presumably, that leaves a surplus in
    excess of $1 billion for harbor maintenance.
        What are the current backlogs in harbor and port
    maintenance across the U.S.? And if all the revenues collected
    were spent, how much of an impact would it make on that
    backlog?
        Mr. Weakley. Senator, it would basically double the amount
    of money spent on an annual basis. Two thousand-nine was a
    robust year. Annually, they spend about half of what they take
    in. On a national basis, I don't know the number. I can tell
    you from a Great Lakes perspective the current backlog is about
    17 million cubic yards. It would take about $200 million to
    clear that.
        And remember, that just gets us back to what they call
    functional dimensions, not authorized dimensions. You could
    probably double that number. And I think the gentleman sitting
    to my right nailed it; it is about efficiency. We save the
    American consumer just within the Great Lakes navigation system
    $3.6 billion. Should the American consumer be asked to pay $3.6
    billion more to get nothing other than what they are already
    getting, efficient transportation?
        Senator Merkley. So it sounds like you would recommend
    spending that surplus to tackle these needed repairs,
    maintenance, efficiencies, and thereby we would also be
    creating jobs during this difficult period.
        Mr. Weakley. Absolutely, Senator. And it is a nationwide
    problem. All four of our coasts need dredging. Oakland in
    particular I know is in need of maintenance dredging. As ports
    get deepened, that increase goes up. But on the Great Lakes we
    are not talking about deepening anything. We are talking about
    taking a two-lane highway and restoring the four lanes of
    usage.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, is it appropriate for me to ask one more
    question?
        Senator Boxer. You can, in fact, because we still have
    time, yes.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Roth, I want to turn to the issue of
    the levee certifications. First, just note that the change in
    law with the Corps no longer taking on those certifications,
    has imposed extraordinary stress on numerous communities in
    Oregon. I am certainly not satisfied that we have a strategy to
    address those recertifications. The situation now is such that
    there is a sense of paralysis on the ground, trapped between
    the requirement to decertify and the absence of a financial
    strategy to be able to do so. How do we tackle this?
        Mr. Roth. This is certainly a very complex problem, and
    extends well beyond, in many cases, just the amount of money
    that might be required to evaluate a levee system and provide a
    certification for as required under the NFIP. Certification is
    also an extremely loaded word in the consulting engineering
    community. For a professional engineer to certify a levee, it
    may be interpreted that that engineer is also essentially
    providing a guarantee that the levee is going to perform, and
    in many cases perform in excess of what it otherwise might be
    expected to have performed in the event that a disaster has
    occurred.
        I would certainly suggest we have to take a hard look at
    that. We need to look at whether the certification process is
    the right way to go about evaluating the safety of a levee
    system for a particular community. We need to include, as I
    mentioned before, a comprehensive communication program so that
    people know and understand the risk that they may be accepting,
    that they may be living with--and in many cases have lived with
    for a long time--not knowing what their level of risk truly
    was.
        And we should be looking at it very comprehensively. In
    many cases it may be wiser to use other kinds of flood
    reduction systems besides structural systems, such as levees. I
    would ask if my colleague, Mr. Verigin, might want to add to
    that.
        Mr. Verigin. Certainly. Certification was designed to be an
    activity with respect to flood insurance, not level of levee
    protection. So the Corps is doing it or not doing it for non-
    Federal levees is the development I believe that you are
    talking about.
        So the way that I have seen it work in the States in the
    west that I have been involved with is that where the Corps is
    no longer doing the engineering studies to provide the
    certification for non-Federal levees, the communities or the
    agency has solicited on their own for A&E firms, or with their
    own forces, to do the work for certification. And so the
    culminating point of certification is either that you have or
    you do not meet the requirements for 100-year level of
    protection. Then that affects the amount of the premium that
    the homeowner would have to pay behind the levee. It also
    carries with it some building restrictions if you don't have a
    100-year level of protection. This current work that we have
    done with the committee has been more toward, as Larry
    mentioned, in the direction of informing people of the level of
    risk they have irrespective of where they are within that
    insurance continuum.
        Senator Merkley. What I hear repeatedly from communities
    back home is that the Corps was able to provide this
    engineering certification far more cheaply, efficiently, and
    they are being forced into a far higher cost of solutions.
    Should we shift this responsibility back to the Corps?
        Mr. Verigin. Actually, the Corps in the certification
    process, they do say that you can hire them to do that
    certification if a community chooses to do that. I would
    comment that they have recently--it was a technical letter
    which I think has gone on to an engineering, an EC, I forget
    what the nomenclature stands for, but a standard approach that
    some of their technical evaluations for certification have
    become--have raised the standard a bit. So it may or may not be
    something that a community would wish to pursue.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Roth.
        Mr. Roth. I don't think it is necessarily something that
    should be shifted back to the Corps. First of all, it is, as
    you noted, a very large problem affecting a large number of
    communities. I think the recommendations that have been put
    forth by the National Levee Safety Committee, if many of those
    are implemented, that would provide an appropriate road map for
    us to follow. Then the work can be done by both the private
    sector and the Corps to achieve the needs of these communities
    that are being protected by levee systems.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record
    testimony from the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
    and the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, who
    gave us their views on issues related to the next WRDA bill.
    Without objection, we will put that in the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. I also just wanted to thank you, Senator
    Merkley, for coming. Before you arrived--I am just very
    optimistic that we can get this done. Senator Inhofe and
    Senator Vitter I felt were very positive on this, and Senator
    Cardin, you. I am feeling good about this. At a time when
    people say, can we work together, there are areas where we can
    work together. WRDA is a classic case in point.
        Very few bills historically that passed the Senate and the
    House and went to the President and were vetoed were
    overridden. WRDA was one of those bills that Senator Inhofe and
    I teamed up to override a George W. Bush veto. We did it
    because this is such an important program. It is important
    because as was so pointedly stated by Mr. Roth, as he confronts
    buying a home, being concerned, we need to address flooding. We
    need to address the movement of cargo. We need to address
    safety; we need to address the economy. And all that is done in
    WRDA.
        I think that this S. 3213, which restores that trust fund
    for its stated purpose, is a very good thing to pull both sides
    together. I think most of us agree--I haven't checked with
    everybody, but I think most of us agree--trust funds should be,
    as Mr. Weakley said eloquently, for the purpose for which they
    were intended. That is why we set them up.
        And if we raid trust funds it is not fair to the people who
    have paid the fee into the fund. So I think that is going to be
    a very central piece of our bill, and also levee safety, which
    all of you have spoken so eloquently, particularly Mr. Verigin
    and Mr. Roth.
        So I am--at a time when people are pessimistic that things
    can get done, I am optimistic that we can get a WRDA bill done.
    I am optimistic, from what I have heard from colleagues on both
    sides. So I want to thank this panel. You have been terrific,
    very direct, very clear. We really appreciate your testimony
    today.
        The vote has started, so we will now stand adjourned. Thank
    you.
        Let the record show that it is Senator Inhofe's birthday
    and Bettina Poirier's birthday, as well. That is why they are
    such good friends, born on the same day.
        [Laughter.]
        [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                                     [all]