[Senate Hearing 113-697]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-697
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATER RESOURCES
POLICIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-391 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 7, 2013
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Vitter, David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.......... 3
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 4
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska....... 6
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York 7
Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 8
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 10
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 12
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 12
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico,
prepared statement............................................. 58
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 59
WITNESSES
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil
Works; accompanied by: Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick,
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers...................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 24
Senator Baucus........................................... 27
Senator Cardin........................................... 29
Senator Udall............................................ 32
Senator Gillibrand....................................... 34
Senator Vitter........................................... 35
Senator Wicker........................................... 43
Johnson, Richard M., Executive Director, Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency................................................. 91
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Response to additional questions from Senator Boxer.......... 99
Turner, Richard A., P.E., CFM, Regional Director, Southeast
Louisiana Flood Protection Authority........................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 111
O'Mara, Collin, Secretary, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control............................ 114
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 122
Graves, Garret, Chair, Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority of Louisiana......................................... 126
Prepared statement........................................... 129
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association. 143
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATER
RESOURCES POLICIES
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2013
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, Vitter, Cardin, Gillibrand,
Carper, Baucus, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Fischer, Wicker, and
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, and welcome, everybody.
Welcome, our new member, Senator Fischer. We are thrilled that
you are here.
And I have to say, this is a very important day, starting
with a very important hearing. But at 1:30, I have to admit,
Senator Cardin and Senator Mikulski are going to be receiving a
massive gift from Senator Feinstein and I regarding the Super
Bowl. We are not going to say much more about it now, we are
not.
Senator Cardin. Senator Boxer, I just really want to thank
you for your generosity. You are being so kind, I might ask
Senator Vitter not to hold that investigation on the power
outage that I was going to ask him to do.
Senator Vitter. Madam Chair, I was just going to say, it
could be worse. You could be a Saints fan.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Well, I was worried that the cameras would
catch me climbing up the electric pole.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. But fortunately for me, they were focused on
some of the players.
But Senator Cardin, you know I am a good loser.
Senator Cardin. I had never noticed that about you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I was about to check with Senator Vitter to
see if he would mind if I took away your subcommittee
chairmanship. But I decided you are just too good in the job.
Anyway, we will have more fun with that.
Today we continue this committee's oversight of the Army
Corps of Engineers by looking at its water resources policies
and how they impact our communities. The Corps' flood control
projects keep our families safe, provide enormous economic
benefits. The Corps has also contributed to the construction of
over 14,000 miles of levees across this Nation, and the Corps
estimates that its flood protection efforts prevent $37 billion
annually in damages.
The testimony we hear today will help us as we move forward
with the next WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act,
which authorizes the Corps' projects and programs. The
devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy last year has placed the
spotlight on the need to ensure that communities have critical
flood protection, which is one of the primary goals of the WRDA
bill.
Sandy and other extreme weather events in recent years have
resulted in the loss of lives, caused billions of dollars of
damages and wiped out entire communities. And no one knows that
better than the gentleman sitting next to me, my Ranking
Member, Senator Vitter.
We have proposed a new title for the WRDA bill that will
enable the Corps to help communities better prepare for and
reduce the risks of extreme weather-related disasters,
including severe flooding. There are other goals we want to
accomplish in WRDA that will help many local governments,
including those in my home State of California.
Our draft WRDA bill includes a provision that will allow
the Corps to consider regional differences and work with State
and local governments to develop the most appropriate approach
for managing levee vegetation. This may seem like a small
matter, but it is a big matter. In California, vegetation not
only provides stability for many levees, it also offers the
last remaining habitat for some species, such as salmon.
After evaluating its levees and identifying critical
maintenance and repair needs, California has rightly
prioritized its projects to address the most pressing problems
first. The Corps has begun working with California and other
States to consider regional approaches to vegetation
management. The Corps has also stated that it will allow local
officials to address the worst problems first.
I am encouraged by this progress, I say to you, Hon. Jo-
Ellen Darcy, I am encouraged by this. You are allowing greater
flexibility and I believe we must make this localized approach
to vegetation management permanent.
Another issue we must address in the WRDA bill is the
Corps' policy for providing credit for work carried out by non-
Federal sponsors of Corps projects. In California, State and
local governments are bringing billions of dollars to the table
to improve flood protection. Unfortunately, the Corps'
crediting policies may be discouraging local investments. State
and local participation is vital. That is why I have worked
with Assistant Secretary Darcy to give non-Federal sponsors
more flexibility.
I appreciate the commitment she has already made to
consider exceptions that would allow non-Federal sponsors to
proceed with work ahead of the Corps, if it will improve public
safety or provide other benefits. This type of flexibility is
something we should make permanent as part of the next WRDA
bill.
So I look forward to working with my colleagues and with
the Corps on these and other important issues that will be
raised today. This hearing will help us tremendously. I want to
give great credit to Senator Vitter for asking for this
hearing. I think we will identify ways to improve the Corps'
policies and practices in the next WRDA bill.
Senator Vitter and I will work with our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to hear their concerns. I appreciate
everyone's participation in today's hearing. With that, I call
on my Ranking Member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this
hearing, which you graciously organized as soon as I requested
it. And thank you for your leadership and partnership on water
resources.
I think this hearing is another clear, bold statement that
this entire committee, in a very bipartisan way, is committed
to a new WRDA bill. And we are well into the concrete work of
that bill on a true bipartisan basis. So we are going to do it
in the near future, and it is because of your leadership, Madam
Chair. Thank you very much for that. This hearing is an
important step toward that.
But of course, any bill, including any WRDA bill, is only
as good as its implementation. And that is what I wanted to
focus on the most in this hearing, looking back to the 2007
WRDA, discussing what I consider real and serious
implementation problems and frustrations, so that we solve them
for the 2013 WRDA.
I certainly share the Chair's concerns about all the issues
she mentioned, and I will bring up some more. First of all,
some very basic ones, things that are clearly mandated in the
2007 WRDA with the word ``shall'` with a crystal clear, non-
discretionary mandate that the Corps has simply ignored. Many
other cases where deadlines have slipped significantly on a
routine basis, causing us to miss important deadlines, even
including a loss of authorization of some projects.
Post-Katrina engineering and design guidelines, everyone
wants to learn the lessons of Katrina. Everyone wants to
strengthen engineering and design guidelines in an appropriate
way. I fear, though, that in some cases the new guidelines are
really put together with the thought, if unspoken, that the
safest levee is one that never gets built. Some of these
guidelines have priced protection completely off the map. And a
levee that isn't built, of course, can't breach. But it also
provides no protection.
The levee vegetation issue that the Chair mentioned, I
certainly share in that. We need a flexible, localized response
to that, so that we do it right. The new introduction of the
Modified Charleston Method in the New Orleans district is very
troublesome and inconsistent with what many other districts do.
And the great curtailed lock hours of operation we have seen in
Louisiana around the year are also troublesome. So we'll
hopefully get to all of these and other important matters that
the members care about.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me thank you
and thank Senator Vitter for your working together to get us a
WRDA bill. I think that is extremely important.
We had a hearing last week as to how important WRDA
reauthorization will be for jobs in our community. For the Port
of Baltimore, which is the ninth busiest commercial port, it is
thousands of jobs that are involved. Getting the WRDA bill done
will help save and create jobs in my community.
Last week I pointed out that between 2004 and 2019 on the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Baltimore Port contributes
$228 million and we receive back $155 million. So we need to do
a more aggressive job in keeping our ports competitive. I
mentioned the fact that when you have to load ships at less
than capacity because of the maintenance of the channels, we
are not going to be as competitive as we need to be in the
global economy.
Now, I want to talk about a couple of issues that are
directly related to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, and to
the Army Corps, dealing with how we are going to be handling
dredged material, particularly in the Port of Baltimore. In the
1996 WRDA Authorization Bill, we authorized Poplar Island,
which was a barrier island that almost disappeared in the
Chesapeake Bay. That project allowed for dredged material, not
only a place where we could dispose of it, but it also became a
plus on the environment, by restoring an environmental area.
In 2007, we authorized the next phase of Poplar Island. So
as I look at the WRDA bill, we have to handle extending the
WRDA Section 902 cost limit authority for projects like Poplar
Island. The 2013 WRDA bill will have a major impact on the
long-term success and utility of these projects.
The Corps and the State have worked successfully over the
years to redevelop the barrier islands that have historically
been present in the Chesapeake Bay, using dredged material from
the harbor and elsewhere. As the constructed islands reach
their design capacity, the State and Corps need to work to
close these facilities and move on to the next disposal sites.
The Baltimore Corps District is revising its dredged
material management plan to reflect the closure of Hart-Miller
Island. Cox Creek will replace Hart-Miller Island as a disposal
site for the dredged material in the plan for the Baltimore
dredging projects. I am pleased that the discussions between
the Baltimore Corps and the State are resulting in a mutually
agreed-to solution.
Let me also mention Pierce Creek, which is a disposal site
that is to be reopened, but has to be done in a remedial work
for the community is sensitive to the environmental concerns. I
do have concerns that we are using an old study that involved
one community. I would expect, and I will be watching to make
sure that the remedial work involves all the communities that
are at risk, that could be at risk with the re-opening of the
Pierce Creek facility.
Another major set of concerns are the accumulated sediment
and nutrients behind the Conowingo Dam, and the impact these
pollutants are having on the Chesapeake Bay water quality. In
December, I wrote a letter, with several of my Bay State
Senator colleagues, to the Assistant Secretary, urging the
completion of the long-overdue Lower Susquehanna Watershed
Assessment. This study is designed to examine the loads of
pollutants accumulated behind the Conowingo Dam. The completion
of this study is imperative to informing any remedial action
that may be necessary to improve the health of the Chesapeake
Bay.
Now, I understand the Corps may not be directed involved in
the work to remediate the accumulated contaminants behind the
dam, but I think the findings and the ongoing assessment could
be very informative on the upcoming FERC relicensing process.
Then last, let me just than the Corps for the work that you
do in the restorations in the Chesapeake Bay, the shoreline
protection, the sediment management, oyster and habitat
restoration programs. These are absolutely critical to the
health of the Chesapeake Bay. The Corps has been very active in
this. It is not only an important cash crop for our watermen,
it is also an important environmental crop for how it filters
the pollutants in the Bay itself.
Madam Chair, I really do look forward to this hearing. I
look forward to working with you and the Ranking Member, so
that we can carry out our responsibly and pass, I hope in a
timely fashion, the Water Reauthorization Act.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland
Madam Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today
to discuss the Army Corps' Civil Works' water resources
programs. It goes without saying that these programs are
incredibly important to Maryland's economy and the health of
the Chesapeake Bay.
I am very pleased that our committee is not wasting any
time in working on reauthorizing the Water Resources
Development Act. This hearing, as well as last week's hearing,
certainly helps advance progress on the reauthorization
process.
The high quality jobs associated with maintaining and
building our waterways infrastructure makes reauthorizing WRDA
all the more important.
The 2007 WRDA received overwhelming bi-partisan support
from this committee. The projects that bill supported provided
critical employment opportunities at a time when the Nation was
beginning to face uncertain economic times. Now, we've come
back from the brink of economic catastrophe and reauthorizing
WRDA this year helps keep our economy on the right course.
WRDA projects are critically important to the U.S. economy.
According to the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, 1 in every 11 shipping containers engaged in
global trade is either bound for or originates from a U.S.
port.
The Port of Baltimore is ranked ninth among all U.S.
commercial ports, in terms of total value of goods moved
through the port. In July 2012, the Port of Baltimore handled a
record 853,818 tons of general cargo. The Port of Baltimore
handles the most ``roll on/roll off'' cargo, like cars and
trucks, as well as the most ore, sugar and gypsum than any port
in the United States.
The Port of Baltimore also directly employs more than 1,000
workers while supporting thousands more across Maryland. These
jobs and the movement of the valuable cargo coming in and out
of the port would not be realized if it weren't for the Army
Corps' work to maintain the Baltimore Harbor Channel.
That's not to say more work is not needed. My statement
from last week's hearing explained the backlog of work that is
needed at the Baltimore Harbor. I also discussed my concerns
with the inequity in how Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars
are distributed. Between 2004 and 2010, the Port of Baltimore
generated approximately $228 million in Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund revenues, yet during that same period the Port of
Baltimore only received $154.7 million for dredging.
The extensive work that is done to maintain Maryland's
shipping channels generates a great deal of dredge material
that needs to be disposed of in a safe and responsible manner.
A great project that exemplifies a critical dredge material
disposal site that also represents an important ecological
restoration project is the reestablishment of Poplar Island.
Prior to the restoration project, Poplar Island had washed away
to less than 5 percent of its historical landmass. The first
phase of the Poplar Island restoration project was authorized
in the 1996 WRDA and has been a success. The 2007 WRDA
authorized the next phase of the Poplar Island restoration
project which is still in the planning phase but is nearly
ready for construction.
I want to make sure that both of these worthwhile projects
that serve the multiple purposes of dredge material disposal,
ecosystem restoration, and barrier island protection for
coastal communities from storm surges, continues to progress.
How we handle extending the WRDA Sec. 902 (Cost Limit)
authority for projects like Poplar Island in the 2013 WRDA will
have a major impact on the long term success and utility of
these projects. I look forward to asking Assistant Secretary
Darcy for her input and assistance with keeping these projects
on track.
The Corps and the State have worked successfully over the
years to redevelop the barrier islands that have historically
been present in the Chesapeake Bay using dredge material from
the Harbor and elsewhere. As the constructed islands reach
their designed capacity the State and the Corps need work to
close these facilities and move on to the next disposal site.
The Baltimore Corps District is revising its Dredge
Material Management Plan (DMMP) to reflect the closure of Hart-
Miller Island (HMI). Cox Creek will replace HMI as the disposal
site for dredge material in the DMMP for Baltimore dredging
projects.
I am pleased that the discussions between the Baltimore
Corps District and the State are resulting in a mutually agreed
upon solution. I will continue to follow the development of
this process and will be in contact with the Assistant
Secretary as the revised DMMP makes its way to her for
approval.
Another major set of concerns are the accumulated sediments
and nutrients behind Conowingo Dam and the impact these
pollutant are having on Chesapeake Bay water quality. In
December, I wrote a letter, with several of my Bay State Senate
colleagues, to the Assistant Secretary urging the completion of
the long overdue Lower Susquehanna Watershed Assessment.
This study is designed to examine the load of pollutants
accumulating behind the Conowingo Dam. The completion of this
study is imperative to informing any remediation actions that
may be necessary to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
I understand that the Corps may not be directly involved in
the work to remediate the accumulated contaminants behind the
dam, but I think the findings of the ongoing Assessment could
be very informative of the upcoming FERC relicensing process.
I'd be remiss if I didn't also take this opportunity to
mention the important work the Corps is doing in Maryland, and
throughout the Bay region, to provide critical environmental
restoration of natural resources. The Corps' shoreline
protection, sediment management, and oyster and habitat
restoration programs are integral to Chesapeake Bay restoration
efforts. Since oysters represent more than just a source of
income for Maryland's watermen--they are natural biological
filters continually cleaning up the Bay--WRDA's habitat
restoration is leading to long-term solutions for water quality
in the Bay.
It has been more than 5 years since Congress passed the
last WRDA legislation. It is essential to our Nation's
infrastructure, economy, and environment that we work together
to craft a strong, effective bill. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on the latest reauthorization of WRDA.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Fischer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter,
thank you for holding this hearing today.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to Assistant
Secretary Darcy and General Bostick and all the other witnesses
for being here today, and for your willingness to share your
time with this committee.
Madam Secretary, I know you had the opportunity in 2011 to
spend some time on the Platte River in Nebraska. I want to
thank you for coming to our State. I understand that you saw
several bald eagles while out on the Platte River, and you
developed a real appreciation for the natural resources of our
great State.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out some
other resources that Nebraska has to offer as you carry out
your work. Recognizing the important role that technical
expertise plays in the Corps of Engineers mission, I want to
make you aware, if you are not already, of the recently
established Water for Food Institute at the University of
Nebraska. The Institute's executive director, Professor Roberto
Lenton, who was previously at the World Bank and helped to
launch the global water partnership.
I would like to invite the experts at your engineering
research and development center and across the Corps to visit
and utilize these experts that we have at the University of
Nebraska. Nebraska, like so many other States, has grappled
with water resource management challenges. After dealing with
the damage and devastation of the floods along the Missouri
River in 2011, we are now facing a time of historic drought all
across our State.
I am pleased to be joining a committee that has a very
strong history of bipartisan cooperation on these important
infrastructure issues, and I look forward to working with all
of my colleagues on the committee on this next Water Resources
Development Act. I am pleased we are meeting today to examine
the implementation of the Corps' water resource policies.
Before we undertake the consideration of this new bill, that
will hopefully reform and expedite project delivery and
prioritize water resources projects, it is important that we
understand how the Corps is currently working to maintain
navigation channels, reduce flood and storm damage and restore
aquatic ecosystems.
Thank you again, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. I
look forward to today's testimony and questions. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Fischer.
Senator Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for
holding this very important hearing on our Nation's water
infrastructure priorities.
For New York, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, this is one
of the most urgent priorities for New Yorkers trying to rebuild
our communities. I want to thank Assistant Secretary Darcy for
your willingness to testify before this committee twice in 2
weeks, and for your strong commitment to helping my State. I am
incredibly grateful, because all the communities in the
Northeast that were damaged by Sandy are in urgent need. We
will need your assistance in rebuilding our communities and our
coastal infrastructure.
For Madam Chairwoman and Senator Vitter, I share your
commitment to having a strong WRDA bill this year. New York is
not only a maritime State, it has 127 miles of coastline, but
our State is also home to 70,000 miles of rivers and streams
and 76,000 freshwater lakes, pond and reservoirs, and hundreds
of miles of shoreline along Lakes Erie, Ontario and Champlain,
and the St. Laurence Seaway. Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene
and Tropical Storm Lee have shown us in no uncertain terms the
importance of Army Corps flood protection and mitigation to
communities across New York and the Northeast.
One of the lessons learned is that mitigation matters. And
providing adequate flood protection, whether it be structural
or non-structural, reduces the risks associated with extreme
weather. Communities along the coast that did not have dunes or
sea walls were exposed to a greater impact from the storm surge
than those that did, and suffered far greater damage as a
result.
Another lesson learned is that we cannot just rebuild what
was lost. We have to rebuild smarter, stronger and more
resilient. That is why I am working with Senator Lautenberg to
provide the Corps with more flexibility when they rebuild and
repair infrastructure damaged by a disaster to provide more
effective protection against the next storm or flood. In the
era of more frequent extreme weather that we live in, this is
just common sense.
While rebuilding from Sandy remains a top priority, there
are other key water infrastructure priorities that I hope will
be addressed in the next WRDA bill. Last week, this committee
had a hearing on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is a
major priority for the Great Lakes communities that rely on
strong ports and harbors to support local jobs and strong local
economies. I fully support Chairwoman Boxer's efforts to
include a Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund guarantee in the next
WRDA bill.
The Army Corps also has an enormous responsibility to
protect the Great Lakes against the threat posed by Asian carp.
These invasive species pose a significant threat to the Great
Lakes and to the regional economy of Western New York. The Army
Corps must move quickly to finalize the Great Lakes-Mississippi
River Inter-Basin Study, which must be completed by January
2014, so that additional measures can be taken to prevent the
flow of carp from the Mississippi River Basin into the Great
Lakes.
Maintaining our Nation's water infrastructure is one of our
biggest responsibilities as a Federal Government. Dams, levees,
dunes and other flood control infrastructure provide life-
saving protection to our coastal and flood-prone regions.
Maintenance of our harbors protects jobs and ensures the United
States can remain competitive. Keeping our lakes and streams
free of dangerous invasive species keeps our drinking water
clean and our sporting and recreational industry strong.
So I look forward to working with our Chairwoman and
Ranking Member. I look forward to working with the Corps and my
colleagues on this committee to address these very urgent
needs. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, thank you and the Ranking Member for
scheduling this important hearing. I am delighted to be here
for my first hearing as a member of this committee. I want to
thank our two distinguished panelists for being here, also.
America's inland waterways, ports and flood control
structures help drive domestic and global commerce, spur
economic development, and support millions of American jobs.
The President has stated he wants to double America's exports.
To do so, we must address needed updates in infrastructure that
manages our water resources. We must make sure that American
products can move efficiently to global markets.
Most of us recognize the Inland Waterways Trust Fund is
dysfunctional, due in part to cost overruns and decreased
revenues. The trust fund may require structural changes to
ensure that aging infrastructure can be maintained and
rehabilitated. Any changes should include meaningful input from
commercial shippers that pay the fuel tax to support the fund.
With 15 ports, my home State of Mississippi recognizes the
importance of our Country's water resources, in particular the
extraordinary value of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi
River is a wonderful work of nature. It is also a critical
backbone of our Nation's economy, responsible for creating $105
billion worth of America's GDP. It should be a key component of
any discussion we have about the Nation's commerce and
waterways.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, MR&T, has
protected this essential artery of commerce for more than eight
decades, safeguarding the flow of traffic on the river and
fertile agricultural lands along its shores. Since 1928, the
project's planning, construction, operation and maintenance has
delivered a 34 to 1 return on its investment and saved $350
billion in prevented flood damages.
In short, the MR&T is a Federal project that works. Yet we
are not fully utilizing this proven investment. The MR&T is
only 85 percent complete, leaving many areas and the flow of
commerce vulnerable to disaster, including areas in my State of
Mississippi.
In addition to the Mississippi River, effective policies
concerning water resources along the Gulf Coast are vital to
the protection of life, property and the well-being of our
Nation's economy. The Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program
was authorized by Congress following Hurricane Katrina to
provide storm damage protection off the coast of Mississippi.
The Corps of Engineers completed the program's initial projects
under budget. But Mississippi is still waiting for work to be
done on other Mississippi projects that have received favorable
chief reports from the Corps.
It is only a matter of time until another hurricane hits
the Gulf Coast of our Country. We must be prepared. Work on
these projects needs to begin without further delay.
I would like to hear the Secretary's views today on these
issues and what the Corps is doing to address inland waterway
needs, especially how projects of national significance, such
as the MR&T, might be impacted should sequestration occur.
Unless this policy changes, the Corps of Engineers will face an
8.2 percent reduction in its budget. So I am concerned that the
MR&T could lose funding, putting jobs and safety of Americans
at risk.
I am also interested in learning how the Corps prioritizes
projects for funding each year in the Administration's budget.
Finally, I would like to state that we are long overdue in
addressing the dredging needs of our Nation's ports, which was
a subject of the committee's most recent hearing. It is
particularly troubling that lack of maintenance dredging makes
a port less competitive in securing future maintenance
dredging. For Mississippi's State port, at Gulfport,
Mississippi, this has become a self-perpetuating cycle that
must be addressed.
So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to these distinguished
witnesses. I look forward to a very important hearing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Welcome to our
committee. I think you will find that when we are in the area
of WRDA and highways, we are very bipartisan. A little
different when we are talking about climate change.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. But we are starting off on the things we
agree with. So that is good.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And we know you will be a part of a very
productive committee.
So the order is Carper, Boozman, Baucus. And at that point,
we are going to stop the opening statements and go straight to
our distinguished panel. Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. I agree with what the Chairwoman's
characterization of our committee. It is a good committee; we
do get a lot done.
I just want to say to Senator Fischer, as she prepares to
head for her next meeting, it is great to have you on board. We
welcome you and also Roger. I think you will both add a lot to
this committee. Welcome.
Secretary Darcy, it is very nice to see you. Thanks for
joining us today. Thanks for bringing General Bostick with you.
It is a pleasure to see you both. Thank you for your
leadership. You have hard jobs, very challenging jobs, but
really important jobs, as you know. We are grateful for your
leadership and what you do.
I want to welcome out in the audience, sitting two rows
behind Secretary Darcy, over your right shoulder, is a fellow
from Delaware, Collin O'Mara, who is our Secretary of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control. He has been a terrific
Secretary for the last 4 years, hired by our Governor, Jack
Markell, and one of the best hires that the Governor has made.
He has been terrific. Not only just a good Secretary for us,
but he has actually played leadership roles among the Nation's
Secretaries of Environment and Natural Resources. We are happy
that he is going to testify later today. We look forward to his
being here. He is a real credit to our State.
As you all know, our State of Delaware, we have water to
our east, we have the Delaware River, which farther south
becomes the Delaware Bay, farther south becomes the Atlantic
Ocean. And not far off to our west is the Chesapeake Bay. So we
are kind of surrounded by water and some land as well. But
along with our inland bays, our smaller rivers and tidal
marshes, we are also blessed with terrific water resources. The
Army Corps of Engineers has been and remains a critical partner
to us in managing those resources.
For example, the Corps is in the midst of deepening the
main channel of the Delaware River, a critical shipping
corridor, to 45 feet in anticipation of the larger super
Panamax, the ships that are going to be coming our way. This
project, this deepening project, years in the making and vital
to regional commerce, will allow Delaware ports like the Port
of Wilmington to make our contribution to the President's goal
of doubling exports by 2015.
On the other side of the State, to our west the Chesapeake
Bay is the largest estuary in the United States of America,
host to countless species and one of our Country's natural
national treasures. Senator Cardin has left us, but he has
spent huge amounts of time and energy trying to make sure that
the large estuary, huge estuary which has these enormous dead
zones, is brought back to life. I think we are actually seeing
some encouraging progress.
If you can believe it, back to Delaware, both the
pharmaceutical industry and the Red Knot, the Red Knot is an
endangered migratory bird, depend on the largest population of
horseshoe crabs in America. Those horseshoe crabs are found
right along the Delaware Bay shore.
The Corps' partnership in environmental restoration
projects has helped to revitalize and enhance these magnificent
coastal environments for the benefit of wildlife, the benefit
of outdoorsmen and women, for tourists and the businesses that
they support. Finally, as we tragically saw during Hurricane
Sandy, Delaware is also at the mercy of severe coastal storms.
We depend on the Corps' flood protection projects, which have
spared lives and protected hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of our constituents' properties. Whatever the project may
be, we value our partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers
and the work that they do, that you all do. I really want to
thank Senator Boxer and our Ranking Member, Senator Vitter, for
making WRDA a top priority in our 113th Congress.
I often say my work in the Senate, everything I do, I know
I can do better. I think the same is true for all of us, if we
are honest, and the same is true of all our Federal programs.
That is true of the Army Corps of Engineers.
We last passed a WRDA bill in 2007. I was proud to be part
of the bipartisan reform efforts that I believe have had a
positive impact on the Corps' effectiveness. I appreciate that
Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter have been just as receptive to
our suggestions, to my suggestions this time around. However,
as much as we seek to improve the policies that guide the
Corps' work, we also have to keep in mind the fiscal
constraints under which we are all acting. I was reminded of
that just in the last 2 days. We have to focus on new ways of
doing business that offer us better results for less money
where possible, doing more with less, rather than less with
less.
Nowhere is this as clear to me than in the storm damage
protection and coastal hazard mitigation. The Corps, along with
FEMA and States and municipalities, must form even closer
working relationships to help protect against rising seas and
stronger, more frequent storms. There are other areas of
coastal policies such as the regional management of
sedimentation, sediment resources that I believe could also
yield cost savings while offering better outcomes.
Ultimately, I am sure we can accomplish this. We have more
solutions than we do have problems. While our budgets may be
limited, our capacity to innovate is limitless. I look forward
to hearing your ideas from this panel and the subsequent panel.
We are delighted to have this hearing today.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My thanks to the witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
And we turn to Senator Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think in the interest of time, which you will appreciate,
you and the Ranking Member, I will submit something into the
record. There are a couple of things, reduced levels of service
on our inland waterways, hydropower modernization, levee safety
policies as well as the Olmstead and Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. Certainly those are things that I'm concerned about,
along with other aspects of your testimony.
So it is good that you are here. I look forward to hearing
the testimony.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. We will put your opening
statement into the record.
[The referenced statement was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am very pleased to be here, for a lot of reasons. One,
because of the importance of the Corps to not only the Country,
but my State of Montana. Second, to be able to ask the
Assistant Secretary of the Army Corps, Jo-Ellen Darcy, some
questions. Jo-Ellen Darcy once worked for me. She was on my
staff, and just terrific. I would turn to Jo-Ellen with all
kinds of questions about the Corps and WRDA, you name it. I
very much appreciate how competent and how well she answered,
and what a sterling person she is. So I am not at all surprised
that she has been promoted, a while ago, to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. We are very proud of
you.
I would like to focus on a couple of areas, how the Corps
affects the State of Montana. First, flood risk management, the
second is water demands on Missouri. A couple of years ago,
2011, Montana suffered some of the worst floods in recent
memory. It was stunning, the floods in the State of Montana.
And I am sure this is true across the Country. People,
restaurant owners, people who worked on the highway and county
commissioners, and farmers, ranchers, all joined together to
help each other out. It was really flooded. It is hard for me
to find the superlatives just to explain how flooded it was.
I had to go visit some of these places; I was stunned how
much was underwater. I didn't know there was that much water,
but it was there. I deeply appreciate all that they put
together.
FEMA alone distributed I think about $60 million to pay for
roads and levees and irrigation ditches and water treatment
plants and now they are slowing getting back together. I was
just there a year ago, and it was still not totally recovered.
The Corps, of course, played a very essential role in both
planning ahead and managing the base when the floods came.
On the first count, I have worked for 3 years to inject
some common sense into the overlapping levee inspection, a
process that involves both the Corps and FEMA, especially the
Corps' certification process of FEMA. I know, Madam Secretary,
how much you understand and appreciate that. I will go visit
communities in Montana, around Great Falls, for example, Sun
River, Miles City, people are just fit to be tied. They just
want to do the right thing, they want to have the levees there
so flood insurance can be provided, so the area can be
developed. It is just bureaucracy, the tension between the
Corps and FEMA, who is going to pay for it and so forth.
Frankly, I would like to hear from you, Madam Secretary,
about how the Corps is implementing all of that, especially a
provision that Senator Tester and I included in the Highway
Bill last summer, to straighten out that confusion.
Now while we are sitting here in the Capitol today, we
expect rain tonight. While it is raining here, the snow packs
will be building in the mountains of Montana. The question is,
will 2013 bring another 500-year flood. Nobody knows. But the
independent panel that reviewed the Corps operation in Missouri
in 2011 did note the recent frequency of extreme weather. And
droughts become floods in Montana, it is amazing.
Therefore it seems appropriate that our Chairman has chosen
to focus a section of the new WRDA Act on extreme weather. I
think that is very appropriate that we do that, because it is
happening, it is with us, we have to deal with it. The whiplash
damage caused by floods one year, then drought and fires the
next year, underscores the need for more attention to this
phenomenon, the fluctuation, the frequency.
It also underscores the need to avoid knee-jerk reactions.
We too often forget or choose to forget a very important fact.
The Missouri River wasn't dammed up just to benefit our friends
east of the 100th meridian, or stated differently, less
obliquely, opaquely, we didn't build dams on the Missouri to
benefit our friends on the Mississippi. That was not the plan.
So I understand that people downstream, and by downstream I
mean way downstream, on the Mississippi, not downstream
Missouri, but on the Mississippi, want us to flood water down
from the dams upstream in the Missouri. I understand that. But
that is not the purpose of the master manual that manages the
dams on the Missouri.
The current operating manual took a decade and a half to
complete, a decade and a half. So much time and effort has been
put into putting that master manual together. So beyond flood
management, I remind you, Madam Secretary, Montanans irrigate
their farms, they run valuable fishing businesses, you know
about Fort Peck Lake. They draw their power from the river.
In 2010, 800,000 visitors went to Fort Peck and Lake
Koocanusa, spent about $17 million annually. I spent years on
this committee fighting attempts to drain the livelihood of
Montanans to float barges downstream. I needn't remind you of
that economic study the Corps undertook, you are smiling, so
you know what I am talking about, and you know the conclusions
in it, which basically provided that on about an eight to one
basis, economic value is much greater, that is the recreation
value and dollar value, is about eight times higher upstream
than is the economic value of downstream Missouri barge
traffic. Eight times higher economic value from recreation than
it is for downstream.
And that is in the manual. The manual sets policy and I
thank you for following the manual.
In two consecutive years, now, though, for separate
reasons, but the drop of a hat, downstream rivers have
attempted to siphon off our water. It is just not right, but
first of all, that is not what the manual provides.
So I look forward to the comments of our witnesses about
the long-term stable management of our water resources, and I
thank you, Madam Secretary, for your good work.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Good morning. I am pleased to join today for this oversight
hearing on the Corps of Engineers. I welcome the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, who was
a key member of my staff before taking over the reins at the
Corps.
While the Corps affects many areas of American life, I will
focus on two key areas: flood risk management and water demands
on the Missouri River.
In 2011, Montana suffered some of the worst floods in
recent memory. For months, we used Montana grit to make
emergency repairs in towns like Roundup, Ryegate, Joliet, Lodge
Grass, and Sun River.
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, alone
distributed over $60 million to pay for repairing roads,
levees, irrigation ditches, and water treatment plants.
The Corps, of course, played an essential role in both
planning ahead and managing the basin when the floods came.
On the first count, I have worked for 3 years to inject
some common sense into the overlapping levee inspection process
of the Corps and certification process of FEMA.
I hope to hear today from Assistant Secretary Darcy about
how the Corps is implementing a provision that Senator Tester
and I included in the highway bill last summer.
Now, while we sit here in the Capitol expecting rain
tonight, the snowpack is building in the mountains of Montana.
Will 2013 bring another 500-year flood? No one can say.
But the independent panel that reviewed the Corps'
operation of the Missouri in 2011 did note the recent frequency
of extreme weather.
It seems appropriate, therefore, that the Chairman has
chosen to focus a section of a new Water Resources Development
Act on extreme weather.
The whiplash damage caused by floods one year, then drought
and wildfires the next year, underscores the need for more
attention to this area. It also underscores the need to avoid
knee-jerk reactions.
We too often forget, or choose to forget, an important
fact. The Missouri River wasn't plugged up just to benefit our
friends east of the hundredth meridian.
Or put another way: we didn't dam the Missouri River just
to help the Mississippi.
Congress authorized the Corps to manage the Missouri for
multiple purposes. The current operating manual took a decade
and a half to complete.
Beyond flood management, Montanans irrigate their farms,
run valuable fishing businesses, and draw their power from the
river. In 2010, 800,000 visitors to Fort Peck Lake and Lake
Koocanusa spent $17 million locally.
I have spent years on this committee fighting attempts to
drain the livelihood of Montanans to float barges downstream.
Lo and behold: in two consecutive years now, for separate
reasons but at the drop of a hat, downriver States have
attempted to siphon our water.
In that light, I look forward to the comments of our
witnesses about long-term stable management of our water
resources.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
So we are now going to hear from our distinguished panel,
Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army. She is
accompanied by Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick.
We will give you, I think we should give you about 8
minutes instead of the 5 minutes, so that you don't have to
rush your testimony. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY, CIVIL WORKS; ACCOMPANIED BY: LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P.
BOSTICK, COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
committee. I am honored today to testify before you on the
implementation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water
Resources Policy.
To address the Nation's water resources infrastructure
needs and continue to provide greater value to the Nation, the
Army Corps of Engineers is working to transform the Civil Works
program to improve performance and responsiveness, to enhance
the quality of our products, to increase customer satisfaction,
to build public trust and confidence and most importantly, to
improve the reliability of the Nation's water infrastructure.
First, I will highlight the four issues that you addressed
in your letter of invitation for this hearing. The first was
vegetation on levees. Over the last few years, the Corps has
been looking in depth into the issue of how vegetation impacts
infrastructure performance worldwide. Also, advancing our woody
vegetation research efforts and using the information to work
collaboratively with other Federal agencies and local levee
authorities to develop the best path forward for managing
vegetation on or near public safety infrastructure in the
Country.
The second issue was in-kind credit. For approving in-kind
credit for projects, the Corps provides guidance on the
implementation of Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970,
which was amended in WRDA of 2007. This is to study and
construct Corps water resources projects and provide for the
affording of credit to the non-Federal sponsor for their
planning, for their design and for construction of work, if the
work is determined to be integral to the project under
discussion.
The third issue was levels of service on our Corps locks.
By establishing operating hours for its locks, the Corps is
implementing a system-wide, uniform approach to standard levels
of service. We do not plan to close any locks, but rather,
adjust the operating hours of service with the lowest level of
commercial use, those with less than 1,000 commercial lockages
per year. This impacts approximately 54 of the Corps 239 locks
on our systems.
The fourth issue that you raised was applying engineering
standards for flood damage and for hurricane protection
projects. The Corps is using a risk-informed process to both
confirm as well as adjust the application of post-Katrina
standards to other projects resulting in a more appropriate and
cost-efficient design approach. The Corps has been developing a
strategy to address major challenges, including ensuring the
performance of the key features of the Nation's water
infrastructure and responding to shifting demographics, as well
as changes in societal values and climate variability.
Our intent is to better equip the Corps program, our civil
works program, to effectively meet current and future needs, as
well as ensure that decisionmakers are fully informed. This
strategy focuses on four main areas: planning modernization,
budget development transformation and infrastructure strategy
and our methods of delivery. We are looking to ensure that the
budget development process considers the entire portfolio of
potential studies and projects. Funded projects will be
completed more quickly, thereby realizing the benefits for
those projects that offer the best return on investments from
the Nation.
The Civil Works transformation also links national
objectives, our strategic goals and current and emerging needs
using a system-based watershed approach. When implemented, this
new approach will compare outcomes of competing studies and
projects based on their returns. Collaboration with our
customers, our stakeholders, the public and Congress will
enable us to successfully implement this approach.
Ensuring the continued performance of the key features of
our infrastructure is becoming more costly over time, in part
because of the age of the components of some of our projects,
but also because of the increases in costs to repair and
rehabilitate them. Operational demands have also grown and
changed. We are working on an infrastructure strategy to
address these growing needs. The strategy incorporates four
focused areas. It will be an integrated approach to manage our
assets, managing the system over its entire life cycle,
evaluating whether a project or group of related projects
should remain a Federal responsibility prior to making a
substantial further investment, and potentials for alternative
financing mechanisms.
The Administration is exploring alternatives for
infrastructure financing, including public-private partnerships
and an infrastructure bank. The intent of the strategy is to
make the best use of Federal and non-Federal dollars to reduce
risk and improve the reliability of the Nation's water
resources infrastructure.
The strategy is to have reliable and efficient methods of
delivery by linking technical capabilities to uniform national
standards, maintaining our core competencies and having
consistent methods, processes and approaches throughout the
Corps of Engineers. The desired end result is a high quality
and timely product delivery services for our customers and our
stakeholders. To that end, for example, the Corps has
established centers of expertise from major dam safety
modifications as well as inland navigation design and deep
draft navigation economics.
The Corps of Engineers has a strong tradition of working
collaboratively with our non-Federal interests to plan as well
as deliver our products. Our transformation partners include
States, tribes, local governments, non-governmental
organizations, non-profit agencies and the general public.
These partnerships are increasing and will likely continue to
increase as we share our common goal of having reliable and
resilient infrastructure for our Nation.
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you
for the opportunity and I look forward to answering any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you. General.
General Bostick. Madam Chair, I have no prepared remarks,
but would just like to thank the committee for all the support
that we have received, and look forward to the questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I will start it off, talk about home a little bit, Madam
Secretary. The city of West Sacramento is working with the
Corps to improve the inadequate Federal levees that protect the
city. And anyone who has looked at the Sacramento area knows
how vulnerable we are.
The city is currently planning how to spend the substantial
local and State dollars that have been committed to the
project. On October 1st of last year, Mayor Cabaldon wrote to
you requesting guidance on the Corps' crediting policy. The
city plans to spend $14 million, that is a lot for the city of
West Sacramento, to design a 5.7 section of the levee project.
But they seek assurances that its efforts will be eligible for
credit.
On November 29th, you replied that you weren't able to
provide specific criteria that would be used to evaluate any
requests for an exception to the Corps' crediting policy. Now,
without specific criteria, how can non-Federal sponsors like
West Sacramento have certainty that the work they are pursuing
will be eligible for credit? And how can we proceed from this
point, so we can encourage the locals to move ahead with these
important improvements?
Ms. Darcy. Senator Boxer, I believe in the case of
Sacramento, we have worked with the local sponsor to come up
with a timing schedule for when our feasibility study would be
completed and when their construction would start, so that we
would be able to evaluate the study and that would be
completed, or in the draft feasibility stage, which is when we
would be able to make a determination as to whether the
construction that they were contemplating would be integral to
the project. That's the key to determining credit, is if it is
integral to the Federal project.
Senator Boxer. When will you let them know?
Ms. Darcy. I think this draft, I want to say August, but I
will double check with staff. I think it is August 2013 that
the draft feasibility will be released.
Senator Boxer. If I could, instead of taking up your
valuable time, could we talk about this? That is a long time to
wait. These projects are urgent. Could we talk a little about
this? This is the city of West Sacramento, which is not the
city of Sacramento. So could we talk later?
Ms. Darcy. Certainly.
Senator Boxer. OK. First, I wanted thank you, because we
met about the Salton Sea, and for those people here who have
never heard of it or don't know, it is a huge, amazing sea that
came about through human activity, let's put it that way. In
the 1950s and 1960s, it was just this amazing recreation area.
And because of a confluence of issues, it is drying up. If it
continue the way it is going, it is a huge health hazard to not
only the people of Riverside County, but it will be a problem
even as far away as Los Angeles. So we are talking about
potentially millions of people breathing in small particles, et
cetera.
We have to make sure that the sea is restored. I have been
working with you and also Interior. I look forward to working
with the new Interior Secretary on this.
Would you commit to me to work to make sure that the Corps
is involved in the restoration of the sea? Because you are the
ones that can really do it. There is a lot of talk but you are
the ones who have the expertise. Can we continue our
collaborative relationship?
Ms. Darcy. Of course. I believe also that Colonel Toy was
with you when you went to visit the Salton Sea.
Senator Boxer. He was, and he couldn't have been nicer. It
is a very big challenge for us. It is a health issue, it is a
species issue and it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.
I have one more question. Your testimony highlights the
Administration's efforts to explore alternative models of
infrastructure funding. In MAP-21, which was our highway bill,
all of us together worked to expand TIFIA, which is a way to
take a steady flow of financing and, because we have that
steady flow, in other words, in this case of the highway bill,
a vote by the people of the localities to fund transit or fund
roads, the Federal Government can step in front and get that
funding quicker and get paid back through the State a stream of
funding.
So we are looking at this in WRDA, a way to do the same
thing, where localities vote to improve their water resources,
the Federal Government, without any risk, really, can come up
front and fund it. Will you take a look at that part of our
WRDA draft and get back to us as to whether you think it could
be helpful?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, I believe it provides loan guarantees,
doesn't it?
Senator Boxer. It is credit assistance, yes. The steady
stream of funding is already there. It is not a lick and a
promise. It is there via a sales tax or a commitment by a
county. So will you work with us so that when we put this out,
hopefully in our WRDA bill, you will have looked at the
technicalities?
Ms. Darcy. I believe the provision in MAP-21 was sort of a
pilot project, so putting it in WRDA maybe could build off what
we learned from that.
Senator Boxer. OK, well, we are going to need your help on
the funding for the Salton Sea, because that is something we
just need to have. We need to look at these innovative ways,
because if we do, we can really multiply jobs and multiply
commerce. Because a lot of these projects are very expensive.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Madam Secretary and General Bostick, for all of your work.
There is no State that is more dependent on the good work of
the Corps than Louisiana. And of course, Hurricane Katrina
underscored that, and thank you in particular for historic
important work post-Katrina that made the directly impacted
area far safer than the day before Katrina.
The last WRDA, WRDA 2007, was a big part of that direction
and of that work. But there are some aspects of implementation
of that, as I suggested at the beginning, that I am very, very
frustrated about. And in the spirit of fixing those problems
for the next WRDA which we are going to produce, I want to
focus on that.
My biggest frustration is really that the Corps ignores
mandates from Congress when it chooses to, when it doesn't want
to do certain things. I think that is really inappropriate.
Madam Secretary, I assume you recognize, both in terms of
common sense use of the language and legal language that there
is fundamental difference between a provision which says you
may do this and another provision which says, you shall do
this, is that fair to say?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator.
Senator Vitter. I think it is universally understood,
including in legal language, may is discretionary, shall is
mandatory. And yet the Corps has ignored several ``shalls'` in
WRDA 2007 because it clearly just doesn't want to do those
things. For instance, with regard to the Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration Report, that was mandated and
specifically in WRDA 2007 Section 7014 says, ``The Secretary
shall submit to the maximum extent practicable specific project
recommendations.'` So the idea was not just to do a nice,
general report coming out of Katrina, but that it would include
specific project recommendations that could be fast-tracked
coming out of this disaster.
As you know, the Corps has not submitted a single project
recommendation pursuant to that. Do you think that is a fair
interpretation of that mandate?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I believe under the LCA that we came up
with a suite of projects. However, the ultimate recommendation
for going forward was not a recommendation of a particular
project in that instance.
Senator Vitter. So again, you are confirming what I said,
you all submitted no specific project recommendations, even
though that was mandated, at least to the maximum extent
practicable. Do you think it is reasonable to take that
language and do nothing in terms of specific project
recommendations?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we make project recommendations when we
have a cost-sharing sponsor for a project. And that was not the
case in many of these.
Senator Vitter. Oh, I can line up many cost-sharing
sponsors in Louisiana for what we are talking about. That was
not an issue. That was absolutely and is absolutely not an
issue. Are you considering, at this late date, making specific
project recommendations pursuant to that language?
Ms. Darcy. Are we currently considering making
recommendations?
Senator Vitter. Correct.
Ms. Darcy. Not that I am aware of. But it is something that
we can revisit.
Senator Vitter. OK, well, I just point that out as a pretty
obvious example of what I am talking about. Another one is the
Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Plan. Again, in WRDA 2007,
you were mandated, shall submit a comprehensive plan to
Congress. To date, the Corps has not done any LCA Comprehensive
Plan. There is a chief's report, there is LACPR, you were
mandated to put those together, submit a Comprehensive plan,
clear mandate. Why hasn't that been acted upon?
Ms. Darcy. I believe that the combination of the two is
something that has not been funded.
Senator Vitter. Well, through the generosity of the
American people, through act of Congress, we have sent billions
of dollars down there related to this. Billions of dollars.
There is a chief's report and an LACPR. All you have to do is
put the two together for a comprehensive plan. What does it
take to do that?
Ms. Darcy. I want to just double check, I believe that the
President requested it in both his 2012 and 2013 budget. And it
would be considered a new start. But it has not been funded.
Senator Vitter. Quite frankly, this is a game we play all
the time. When the Corps doesn't want to do something, you say,
we need specific line of authorization. Even though there are
billions of dollars in this area. When the Corps wants to do
something that doesn't have a specific appropriation line, you
do it. So again, you are picking and choosing. Not every
discrete action takes a specific authorization line. There are
billions of dollars in this area that fully cover that.
Let me just go to a final example of ignoring mandates, in
my opinion, that touches on what Senator Boxer was talking
about for West Sacramento. For crediting their two provisions,
as you know, Section 104 and Section 221, they both exist, they
are for different times of a project, different applications.
The Corps used to use both of them appropriately.
More recently, you issued a decision that says, we are
never going to use Section 104. Now, not coincidentally, that
section is more helpful and more generous to the locals. So you
are saving money doing that.
What has Congress done to make you think that Section 104
has gone away and does not exist? Because we did not repeal it.
Ms. Darcy. When the Congress amended Section 221 in the
WRDA 2007 bill, it gave a different crediting scenario,
including that the crediting could be applied to all projects.
Section 104 was limited to just flood control projects. So in
looking at that amendment, to Section 221, the application of
credit can now be more widespread among all of our programs. It
also recognizes, by saying that credit will be afforded to a
local sponsor once a project has gone through the draft
feasibility stage, gives us a point in time to measure whether
or not that Federal project will have Federal benefits in order
for us to afford the credit. Because it has to be proven to be
integral to the project in order for us to be able to give the
credit down the road to the local sponsor.
Senator Vitter. I will wrap up and hopefully we can come
back to this. But I just note that Section 221 did not repeal
Section 104. Again, you are just choosing to read it that way
because it is to your advantage. But I will follow up. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first of
all follow up on one of the points of Senator Vitter. I think
he expresses the frustration of many members of our committee
when we have worked to get funding for a project, only to find
it is not funded in the Corps' programs or it takes a lot more
years to get started than we had anticipated.
We have a particular problem now because we have our
restrictions on earmarks. I know that in regard to authorized
projects in Maryland, we are going to need to deal with the
caps, particularly Poplar Island and Poplar Island expansion.
Will you work with this committee in a way that we can carry
out our responsibility, consistent with the restrictions that
we are operating under, but to be able to have some degree of
confidence that by our action and our intentions, that projects
that have been authorized will in fact be funded?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator, and I think one of the things you
are referring to is the 902 cap that is in place.
Senator Cardin. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. Historically the 902 caps have been addressed
through an earmark. What we have to do in the Corps, I think,
is two things. One is to look at the fact that we have too many
902 busts right now. So we need to look more carefully at how
we are actually doing our cost estimates to begin with. Second,
we need to devise a way that we can make recommendations on
what are called post-authorization change reports, which tell
you why the cost has increased and what the new total project
cost should be.
But as you noted, the total project cost has to be changed
by Congress if it meets the 902. That may often be viewed by
some as an earmark as opposed to adjusting a current project.
So I think we have to work together to figure out a way that we
can address the 902s, maybe in some broader programmatic way or
in a way that we can be able to have it not be an earmark.
Because especially for an ongoing project, if it is 75 percent
complete and you just need a little more money to complete it,
that shouldn't be standing in the way.
Senator Cardin. And some of this is self-imposed by us. I
think we have to work together. This committee has worked very
closely to advance projects that are important that you all
have carried forward. I just urge you that if there is an
understanding that by having this pool of funds that these
projects are going to be able to move forward. We expect at the
end of the day these projects will move forward. Poplar Island
has been very popular, it has been authorized, it has been
successful. And as you point out, the cap needs to be adjusted
and we have to do it in a way consistent with our current
rules.
Let me move to Conowingo Dam. You heard my opening comments
about it. The dam has acted as a retention pond for sediment,
phosphorus for decades. Every major weather event we see the
pond breached, and additional sediments and pollutants ending
up in the Chesapeake Bay. You received a letter signed by
several of my colleagues from Pennsylvania, Maryland and
Virginia. There was a study that started in 2011, the Lower
Susquehanna Water Assessment Study that has not been completed.
We also have a deadline with a FERC reauthorization in
August 2014. Can you tell us how we can get the adequate
information and game plan at least to understand it in a timely
way, also recognizing that this information will be important
in the reauthorization under FERC?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I understand that the study is
important in making those determinations. However, in order to
be relicensed I don't believe that assessment is necessary from
the Corps, because in the relicensing process, the only time
the Corps of Engineers would be involved in the relicensing is
if indeed the license----
Senator Cardin. I understand the legal point here, but it
is a useful bit of information when we talk about environmental
impacts.
Ms. Darcy. Right. And I believe that in the 2013 budget, I
don't believe we budgeted for that assessment in the 2013
budget.
Senator Cardin. Once again, there are pools of funds that
are available. I would just urge you to work with us. This is
an extremely important environmental challenge of what happens
during every major weather event.
Ms. Darcy. We will, sir.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
One last point, Pierce Creek. Pierce Creek in Cecil County
is a site that was used for dredge material in the upper bay,
and now likely to reopened. There was a limited study done in
one community about its environmental impact. The communities
that surround, and I support this, believe that it needs to be
a broader review before it is reopened, to make sure that the
environmental impact is protected. Will you work with us to
make sure we have the best information for the community?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir, because I believe, some people believe
that there are groundwater impacts around it that we need to
improving the dyking. So yes, we will.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I just want to thank Senators Fischer and Gillibrand,
because Senator Baucus, who is Chair of Finance, has such a
crazy schedule. He is going to proceed. And we thank you for
your cooperation.
Senator Baucus. Thank you both very much. I will be very
brief, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, would you just give me the status of the
Corps work in harmonizing the certification process with FEMA?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator. As a result of the MAP-21
provision, we have been working with FEMA to better integrate
and coordinate the information that we have. We actually have
already finished one of our reports that was mandated under the
law that hopefully we will be transmitting shortly.
Senator Baucus. An interim was due a month ago, isn't that
correct?
Ms. Darcy. The interim report was due on the 30th of
January. I believe it has been signed and is going through the
Administration. We hope you will have it soon.
Senator Baucus. When can we expect to see it?
Ms. Darcy. I had hoped you would have it by now. I will
make every effort to make sure it happens.
Senator Baucus. We would really appreciate that.
Ms. Darcy. There is a second phase of the report that is
required by MAP-21, which I think is going to help all of us. I
think the whole purpose was to better have the accreditation
and the certification be in line with one another, so that the
information that the Corps collects for safety purposes could
somehow be used for FEMA to be able to use it in their flood
insurance program. I think we are finding ways that we can
hopefully share that information, even though some of the
information is for safety and some is for flood insurance. But
if the local sponsors or the local levee agencies can use the
Corps information for FEMA purposes, that benefits everyone.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. FEMA is a good agency,
but frankly, I have even more confidence in the Corps. I
encourage you, the Corps, to take the lead effort there to
bring that together for an awful lot of people around the
Country. And I am going to watch this closely, for one reason,
it is so important. Second, the language in the bill I
mentioned earlier, the highway bill, was a little bit vague,
which means we are going to have to watching you very closely
to make sure it is implemented in a way we think is
satisfactory.
Second, if you could just tell me a bit about the pallid
sturgeon restoration project in the Yellowstone Basin. There is
concern about the pallid sturgeon under the Endangered Species
Act. We put a provision in the WRDA bill that allows the Corps
to restore a Bureau of Reclamation project, provides irrigation
water for sugar beet producers downstream at Glendive. I think
you received a letter, I know you haven't read it yet, because
you got it I think yesterday, from the Fish and Wildlife
Service, which basically states that if this reclamation
project is undertaken, that it is sufficient to prevent, and
therefore not require Fort Peck renovation, isn't that correct?
Ms. Darcy. That is correct. We did last night receive a
letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service saying that the
project that we have, hopefully will undertake at intake on the
Yellowstone, will provide the kind of fish passage for the
pallid sturgeon and other fish so that we will not have to do a
different project at Fort Peck. The fish passage, as well as
the bypasses that come along with it, will meet the
requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We are also in addition to that working with the Bureau of
Reclamation to get a memorandum of agreement between them and
the Corps of Engineers for the future operation of the project.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that.
Then finally, with respect to the master manual, I made my
point earlier, but I just want to hear it from you that the
Corps will not ignore the master manual when there are efforts,
mainly because there is a flood, efforts downstream to say,
release water earlier to help downstream, or when there is a
drought, to say release it now upstream to help us now for
those States downstream. I just want you to say that you are
going to stick with the master manual.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir, I am legally bound to the master
manual.
Senator Baucus. Good.
Ms. Darcy. The court determined in 2003 that the master
control manual is the operating manual for the Missouri River
Basin.
Senator Baucus. While you are legally bound to follow the
master manual, that means that you will continue to resist
requests from Mississippi States, or even lower Missouri
States, to change the manual just on the basis of a 1-year
event.
Ms. Darcy. Right. As you noted earlier, last summer we were
fighting floods, this summer we are fighting a drought. And the
purpose of the master manual is to be able to manage that
Missouri River system for both instances. And it is for the
Missouri River, it is not written to help the Mississippi.
Senator Baucus. I thank you very much, because that is
something that is very important to not just Montana, it is
other upper Missouri River States. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Baucus. And thank you to
both our colleagues, who are very gracious.
Now we call on Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it would appear that many previously
authorized and funded water resource projects that are critical
to public health and safety require Corps assessments, as you
said, with Section 902 with that limit prior to a full project
completion through the development of a post-authorization
change report.
How can the Administration assure us of the timeliness of
these assessments by the Corps and by the OMB? The issue here
is how timely are those post-authorization change reports that
the Corps is required to do before an adjustment can be sought
by Congress.
Ms. Darcy. What we are doing internally is trying to get
after it earlier. In other words, before it is a year away from
meeting the 902 cap, we are trying to work within the Corps,
but in our vertical team with the district, the division and
then headquarters to get that information earlier, so that we
are able to be able to chart a path forward on how we are
actually going to get the 902 fix that we need. And actually,
if it is necessary, if there are any ways we can look at what
contingencies we built in to the costs or whatever.
Senator Fischer. There are a number of projects that have
exceeded their authorized spending. In Section 902, that limit
appears to be at a similar phase of completion. So some of
these are 80 percent finished, but they risk non-completion for
2 or maybe even 3 years with a resulting risk to the
populations that they are supposed to protect.
So can you tell me what criteria is being used to determine
which of these completed projects will move forward and when
they will move forward?
Ms. Darcy. Do you mean in light of a 902 or just a
project's phase in completion?
Senator Fischer. In light of the 902 limit, where they are
80 percent completed, say.
Ms. Darcy. Well, if they are 80 percent complete and there
is no further increment of that project that we could go
forward with without a 902 fix immediately, in looking at the
whole array of 902 fixes, it would appear as though that would
take some kind of priority. Because it is more eminent than
something that is going to meet a 902 cap 3 or 4 years from
now.
Senator Fischer. Specifically what would you use for
criteria, though, to move those projects forward? What would
you look at?
Ms. Darcy. In order to move them forward, we would need
congressional authorization to increase the cap, increase the
total project cost.
Senator Fischer. And that would be the sole criteria you
would look for?
Ms. Darcy. We could not move forward with that. That is the
biggest criteria.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My focus today is going to be, of course, on Sandy-related
projects, because that is obviously the most urgent issue. And
because there was no congressional report language, there are
still some issues that need to resolve on how the Corps will
spend the $5.4 billion that was appropriated. As you know, I
sent you a letter on February 1st, outlining what our intent of
that was. So my questions are directed there.
The disaster supplemental included $20 million for a
comprehensive study to address flood risk and vulnerability
along with Sandy-affected coasts. It is critical that the study
be specifically focused on the New York-New Jersey region that
was hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy.
Do you agree that resources should be directing to
addressing flood risk in the hardest-hit and most vulnerable
coastal population in my State and in New Jersey?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I believe the authorizing language on
the supplemental appropriations bill directs the Corps of
Engineers throughout its North Atlantic Division, which begins
in Norfolk and goes all the way up to the top of Maine, to look
at a comprehensive study of that entire coastline. However, I
think that what we learned in looking at Sandy is that was the
most impacted area, so that has to be looked at as far as the
frequency of future storms, and also the vulnerabilities that
are there in New York and New Jersey are different than the
vulnerabilities in other parts of the North Atlantic Division.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, so you are saying you do have to
use the money to look at the whole region?
Ms. Darcy. I believe it says the North Atlantic Division
impacted, because some of the States south of New York and New
Jersey were not, and some north. Rhode Island and Connecticut
had some damage as well as Maryland.
Senator Gillibrand. But you can primarily focus on the
places that had the most damage?
Ms. Darcy. I would think that because of the
vulnerabilities that exist there, and the need for increased
resiliency in those areas.
Senator Gillibrand. I am also concerned about ensuring that
the study produces tangible results that will allow the Corps
to move forward with specific projects to address flood risks
that are identified. Do you believe that the Corps has
sufficient authority to move forward with full feasibility
studies using the resources provided in the supplemental? And
will you commit to moving forward with full feasibility studies
of solutions to address the highest priority risks that are
identified, if they are not already covered by the existing
study?
Ms. Darcy. I believe the funding in the supplemental will
be adequate. However, once you begin a feasibility study, you
are never quite sure what the scope is necessary in the end.
Senator Gillibrand. Have you had any conversations or has
the Corps developed any plans on how you will incorporate other
Federal agencies, States and local governments into the study
process? In addition, does the Corps intend to work with other
agencies to incorporate non-structural options, including
ecosystem restoration, into any of the plans for addressing the
flood risk in the affected areas?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, we will, and yes, we have. We have already
begun also looking at, and we have been developing within the
Federal family principle and criteria for what it is we would
need to look at if we are going to build back resiliently. I
serve on Secretary Donovan's task force, and we met yesterday.
I think as part of that task force, we are also looking at this
as well. I think what we are doing in the Corps with this study
can help to inform what we are going to be doing with Secretary
Donovan, because we have a 6-month time line to make
recommendations to the President through that task force. The
Corps is involved in that, both with NOAA and Commerce and
Department of Interior and others.
Senator Gillibrand. That is helpful, thank you. Shortly
following Sandy, I met with your staff and with Senator Schumer
to discuss seven specific projects that we identified as high
priority and included language in the disaster supplemental
meant to accelerate these projects and fund ongoing
construction costs at full Federal expense. Will the Corps be
using the list we identified as a basis for prioritizing
projects, and how does the Corps plan to prioritize other
projects that are necessary to reduce flood risk?
Ms. Darcy. We will be looking at that list as well as
within the Administration, looking at what will be considered
ongoing construction. I know you mentioned that in your letter.
So that will help determine. I think the way we have to look at
this is life safety. That is our initial criteria for
everything we would be doing. And that would be the priority
that we would have to set.
Senator Gillibrand. Briefly, on carp, what is the status of
the Great Lakes-Mississippi River Inter-Basin Study, and how
quickly will the Corps be able to move, once that study is
complete, to begin implementation measures that will prevent
the flow of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes?
Ms. Darcy. The GLMRIS study, the alternative analysis that
we will be presenting in December this year, the end of
December, will present an array of alternatives that we think
are possibilities for keeping invasive species out of the Great
Lakes and the tributaries, from the Mississippi. I think once
we have that, our next step will be working with Congress to
decide which of those alternatives would best suit the outcome
that is desired, which is no invasive species in the Great
Lakes.
Senator Gillibrand. And I have this last question that I
will submit for the record. It is about dredging.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I am getting a little bit worried
about our time. We have a panel yet to come up here.
So if it is OK with everybody, Senator Vitter is the only
one that I know wanted a second round. Does anyone else need a
second round of questions?
We are going to go to you, Senator, but right now, Senators
Wicker and Carper haven't even had their questions. Then we
will turn to Senator Whitehouse. Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me go back to a couple of things I mentioned in my
opening statement. And I note that Senator Carper announced how
excited his home State of Delaware is about Panamax. I think
every State from Texas on up around the coast and up the
eastern seaboard, we are eager to be part of economic expansion
and job creation through this great opportunity of the larger
vessels coming through the Panama Canal.
I mentioned, as one of my areas of concern, the Port of
Gulfport. The fact that we sort of have a cycle there, we
haven't had the maintenance dredging, and that makes the port
less able to be competitive, because it can't take the larger
ships. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
We were supposed to meet, Senator Cochran, you and I and
other members of the delegation were supposed to meet. At the
last minute you were unable to do that, and I understand that.
You sent Mr. Letmon Lee, who has been a great public servant,
and we had a great meeting. I hope you will agree that we need
to look at this what I call self-perpetuating cycle. When the
dredging isn't there, fewer goods and less valuable goods come
through. It becomes a cycle.
So I hope you will agree that you and I and Senator Cochran
and others need to have that meeting and talk about this, and
let's try to resolve that for the sake of jobs and the economy.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Then let me just ask you, I understand no
question has been asked about plans for sequestration yet.
Again, I touched on this in our opening statement. Is it true
that it will mean 8.2 percent across the board to the Corps? I
will ask this of both witnesses. What contingency plans do you
have? I hope at this late date we can stop it. We need to make
the budget savings. But I think we can make them a lot smarter
someplace else in the budget than in DOD.
So what are your plans? I am hearing, Madam Chair, that
there are people on this Hill that are getting a little more
relaxed about sequestration. I continue to believe it is going
to be an utter disaster. So what plans do we have in the event
that this does take place and takes place soon?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, if we are faced with sequestration, we
are going to have to do across-the-board cutbacks in all of our
program areas. We will have reduced funding for dredging, we
will have reduced funding for flood protection, we will have
reduced funding for ecosystem restoration. We have to take it
from every program, and every project is going to have to take
that percentage off the top.
Senator Wicker. Have you talked at all about sending a
request upstream in the bureaucracy for prioritizing the cuts?
Would you like the flexibility to do that?
Ms. Darcy. Perhaps that would be good. But right now, it is
an across the board, and that is the sequestration number, and
the law tell us that is what we have to do.
Senator Wicker. General Bostick, are there any contingency
plans that are just waiting for this axe to fall?
General Bostick. I think, Senator, that across-the-board
cuts are something that we are going to have to live with, as
the Secretary mentioned. But I think the way our moneys are
prioritized now in flood risk management and in navigation, we
will at least keep the bulk of our funds in the areas that are
high priority to the Corps and to the Nation in life safety and
in those areas.
We would prefer not to have across-the-board cuts, but that
is the way it is. I think the funding the way we have it now is
going to help mitigate that.
The other concern we have is for our people, and to make
sure that technical expertise and the folks that have done all
the great work for this Nation over many years, that we are
able to retain the kind of technical expertise that can
continue on with the mission. We will work that internally.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. The Chair is concerned
about the time. I have 30 seconds left. Let me just say, back
to one of the first points I made, we want the inland waterway
system to be part of a solution to the President's goal that we
increase American exports. That being the case, I just would
hope, Secretary Darcy, that the Administration would help us to
do that by making more realistic funding requests that actually
match the needs for flood control and navigation on projects
like the Mississippi River and tributaries.
With that observation, I will let it go at that and thank
both of you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Let me assure you that as Chairman of this committee, I
just wrote an op-ed piece that ran in CNN about how to avert
this ridiculous sequester. It is dangerous, it is dangerous to
everything it touches. They can't have contingency plans, they
have to follow the law. We didn't put into the law, none of us,
a contingency plan. It is what it is.
So unless we act, we can't look at them to save us from
ourselves. Just my point here. We just need to come up with a
way, and I have to commend my colleague, Senator Whitehouse,
because he has come up with a list of ways that we can avert
this thing that is painless, truly. I hope you will take a look
at it. And if there is some agreement, let's get it going
across the aisle here.
Senator Wicker. In 15 seconds?
Senator Boxer. Yes, go ahead.
Senator Wicker. Let me also observe the House of
Representatives passed a plan.
Senator Boxer. Oh, I read it. Oh, I saw it.
Senator Wicker. Bill Lankford scored it.
Senator Boxer. You think sequester is bad.
Senator Wicker. Where is my 15 seconds here, Madam Chair?
Senator Boxer. You can have 30 seconds.
Senator Wicker. Let me just say, I look forward to seeing
bill language coming down from the White House on their
proposal.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Wicker. We had a general concept a few days ago.
But at least our brothers and sisters on the other end of the
building have passed a bill. It is incumbent upon us to take up
some language, vote on it, trying to work it out.
Senator Boxer. I couldn't agree with you more.
Senator Wicker. And some language from the Administration
would help also.
Senator Boxer. I couldn't agree with you more. What I would
say is, our brothers and sisters on the other side of this
Capitol, it was a Republican plan, hurt their brothers and
sisters in the community. It is, I call it Plan C, Calamity. It
didn't do a thing to solve the problem, it just took a bunch of
horrible cuts and in light of Eric Cantor's point yesterday
that he now values education, it killed education, he said he
valued jobs, it killed jobs. He said he valued innovation, it
killed innovation. And he said he valued health care, and it
kills that.
So all I am saying is, let's not look over to our brothers
and sisters over there. Let us come together, because recent
history shows we can do it in a way that bridges this divide. I
hope that we can.
I want to see something from the President, I want to see
something from us. I am with you on that. I agree with you,
this is a calamitous path we are going down in terms of this
sequester. I wanted you to know that I am not one that is
getting comfortable. I am getting more uncomfortable by the
minute on it.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. Somehow I don't think I am going
to get the last word in on this, but I do thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Well, you know, elections have consequences.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I ask unanimous consent to enter the
following statements into the record: Senators Tom Udall,
Landrieu, Inhofe, Association of State Flood Plain Managers,
American Society of Civil Engineers, National Wildlife
Federation, a letter from Senator Cardin and other members to
Secretary Darcy. So we will put those in the record.
[Referenced statements follow. Not all statements were
received at time of print.]
Statement of Hon. Tom Udall,
U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico
Good morning and welcome, Madam Secretary.
Last week, I took the opportunity to highlight three issues
that are of importance to New Mexico. I'm glad we have the
opportunity to follow up again today to discuss them further.
The issues I raised were:
(1) The potential for flooding in our major city--
Albuquerque, New Mexico;
(2) My continued support for the Rio Grande Environmental
Management Program; and
(3) My concern over the current status of the project in
the Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache.
These Army Corps projects along the Rio Grande are
different from many of the other areas of the Nation, because
the Corps is not the only Federal agency with projects along
the river.
Like many other areas of the West, they need to work with
the Bureau of Reclamation which is supplying water for
irrigation, while you are trying to prevent flooding. Both
agencies are also charged with maintaining enough environmental
flows to support a living river for aquatic species.
Water is the lifeblood of the Southwest and we have seen
its availability dramatically affected by extreme climate
events, making these agencies' jobs even harder.
Temperature increases can make droughts like our current
one even more severe.
In addition, many scientists tell us that warming is likely
to mean not only greater droughts in the Southwest, but also an
increasing risk of flooding from extreme rainfall events.
So when we do get rainfall, it is often in the form of
monsoons and extreme rain events that have the potential for
flash flooding and devastating neighborhoods, small towns, and
scenic areas.
Water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce,
calling for trade offs among competing uses and leading to
conflict between competing sectors and neighboring States.
In the face of these challenges I'm calling on parties to
seek cooperation, not conflict.
As a Federal agency with a lot of expertise, the Army Corps
has a responsibility to help foster that cooperation, both
among Federal agencies and with various State and local
entities.
This is a very critical time for New Mexico and the
Southwest to update the way we manage our water resources.
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for
holding this hearing and allowing committee members to receive
testimony on the implementation of Corps of Engineers' water
resource policies. I also would like to thank Assistant
Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General Bostick for testifying
before us again this morning, as well as the four gentlemen who
will be joining us during the second panel--this committee
greatly appreciates you and relies on your expertise, so thank
you very much for being here.
It is crucial for the next Water Resources Development Act
to authorize the necessary maintenance and updates to the
infrastructure of the United States. I look forward to working
with Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, and their staffs in
order to pass this important piece of legislation.
To the witnesses, I look forward to talking to you about a
few possible reforms we should consider. The provisions that
expedited project delivery for Highway and Transit projects
were a hallmark of the MAP-21 legislation that passed through
this committee in 2012. Any reforms to Corps policies should
ensure a streamlined process where we can cut through the red
tape, avoid bureaucratic messes, and minimize the steps taken
to ensure the most effective use of existing resources. More
efficient and transparent policies will allow for greater
regulatory certainty on Corps projects.
We should also look to better utilize public-private
partnerships. One of the most frequently discussed ways to
leverage non-Federal investment is through public-private
partnerships. With these partnerships, State or local
governments enter into an agreement to raise private capital
and transfer risks to the private sector, making challenging
and unaffordable projects possible. Corps projects are woefully
underfunded with a backlog of $60 billion in authorized
projects, yet only a $5 billion yearly budget. These
partnerships are a way to unleash an enormous amount of private
investments in public infrastructure.
One such project is the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan
in my home State of Oklahoma. WRDA 2007 authorized $50 million
to carry out ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and
recreation components of the Plan. Cooperative efforts among
the Corps, Tulsa County, the city of Tulsa, and Indian Nations
Council of Governments (INCOG) are necessary to implement it.
Another important project includes chloride control at the
Red River. I have been working with the Tulsa District Office
and the local Lugert-Altus Irrigation District in order to
provide new drinking water supplies, increased agricultural
irrigation in the southwestern Oklahoma area, and improved
downstream water quality.
Our Nation's system of inland waterways, highways, and
coastal ports are our pathway to trade and economic prosperity.
It is vitally important that we implement responsible policies
in order to best utilize this system. Again, I thank the
witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. And now it is my pleasure to call on Senator
Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks. I will just be very brief, and one
comment before I ask my questions. I think the solution to this
challenge is not easy. But there are three things we need to
do. One, we need more revenues, we need to be closer to where
we were when we had four balanced budgets in a row. I think
revenue as a percentage of GDP, we are between 19 and a half
and 20 and a half percent, last year they were down around 15
and a half, 16 percent.
The second thing is we have to look at our entitlement
programs and figure out how we can save money in those
entitlement programs, especially in health care. And not so
savage older people or poor people, but to find ways to get
better health care results for, in some cases, less money.
Actually, there are some really good ways to do that, and it is
humane. And while we are doing that, to preserve those programs
for the long haul.
But the third thing we have to do is look at everything we
do, everything we do, and just ask this question--how do we get
a better results for less money, or better result for the same
amount of money? So I think those are the three things we need
to do. My hope is that at the end of the day we can come to
agreement around that kind of proposal.
Setting that aside, and this actually is a pretty good
lead-in to my question. One of the projects that you all have
been working on for several years now is the dredging of the
Delaware River up past Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. And
they started up north first, and they are working their way
south, as you know. I think maybe by the end of this fiscal
year we will be down to the southernmost reach of the dredging
operation.
I have a concern, and I am sure it is shared by our
colleagues, certainly shared by my colleagues in Delaware, our
Governor, colleagues in Pennsylvania, their Governor. The
problem we saw with our colleagues in New Jersey, about the
prospects of the Administration asking for funding for this
continued dredging in the next fiscal year. Given the
uncertainly of sequestration, the uncertainly of the budget
process, I just wanted to ask, I just want to make sure that
this is one that is on your radar screen. It is important not
just to our State but probably much more important to
Pennsylvania and I think to New Jersey. I just want to bring it
to your attention.
It would be ironic, a cruel irony, if at the end of the day
we had spent all that money on dredging the northern part of
the Delaware River, down to the Delaware Bay, and got that
dredged to 45 feet in this environmentally sensitive way, and
then found ourselves at the southern part where we have to
leave it at 40 feet. The Panamax ships couldn't get in to take
advantage of all the investment that has been made in the
northern part of that channel.
Could you just make a brief comment on that, Madam
Secretary?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator. I believe we did have funding in
the 2013 budget for the deepening of the Delaware. You are
talking about deepening, right, not maintenance dredging? The
deepening project?
Senator Carper. That is right.
Ms. Darcy. For that, and of course we are still in the
process of putting together the 2014 budget. So we will be
looking at that, along with every other project in this Country
that is competing for limited dollars.
Senator Carper. We have all heard the saying, probably used
the saying, don't throw good money after bad. We have actually
spent the first part of it pretty wisely. I would hate to have
wasted it by leaving the southern part of the channel not
dredged and the rest of it dredged, so it would be of no use to
anybody. That would be unfortunate.
The other question I have is, if I could, Madam Secretary,
I am a strong believer that when it comes to storms, an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure. With rising sea levels
and stronger, more frequent storms, we need to focus on how we
can mitigate against storm damage before it occurs. I recently
succeeded Joe Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs. As part of my
responsibility, I have oversight of FEMA, we have oversight of
FEMA in that committee.
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, I have had some questions
about the degree to which the Corps and FEMA are coordinating
with each other as well as States and towns on a variety of
mitigation activities. I was grateful to Senator Boxer for
including provisions on extreme weather preparedness in her
WRDA draft last year. And there is my question.
Would you just take a minute and share with us your views
on what can be done to increase the Army Corps' capacity to
help mitigate against storm damage, and how we can ensure those
efforts are well coordinated with FEMA's activities and actions
in both the State and the local level?
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator. I am not sure if you were
here when I was answering Senator Gillibrand's questions about
Superstorm Sandy.
Senator Carper. I missed most of her questions.
Ms. Darcy. We within the Corps and FEMA and the other
Federal agencies, not only through the study provisions that we
were directed to under the supplemental in response to Sandy,
but with Secretary Donovan's Sandy Response Task Force, we are
working with all the other Federal agencies to come up with a
Federal response, not only for mitigation but also for how
resiliency is going to be built into our projects in the
future. So mitigation is sort of at the forefront of how it is
we can do this.
I think the projects along the Delaware shore during
Superstorm Sandy can show what those kinds of resilient
projects can be, the sand dunes and the vegetation held up
pretty well.
Senator Carper. They saved hundreds of millions of dollars,
hundreds of millions. Thank you so much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, General
and Secretary.
I am bedeviled by a situation that we have in Rhode Island.
In March 2010, I came through the receiving dock of a Rhode
Island manufacturing company in an inflatable boat. The reason
I did was that we had record flooding, in some cases going
beyond the 500-year level. We are obviously going to see a lot
more of that as we dump more and more carbon into our
atmosphere and we create the setup for continuing worse storms.
The company is called Hope Global. It has been in Rhode
Island since 1883, I think. It is a great company, it is
growing, it employs lots of people, it exports to China, among
other things. So it is doing good work for our awful balance of
trade. And it survived in a very competitive environment.
But it is susceptible to flooding, as my visit to it in an
inflatable boat proved. These kinds of things can happen again.
So this business has to make hard decisions about
relocating. And of course, since it employs a lot of people and
it is a very successful business, there is competition. People
are reaching out to the CEO and saying, don't stay there in
that flood plain, come visit us, come move to our State.
We have been working with the Army Corps trying to solve
that flood plain issue and figure out what can be done to
protect this company in its existing site. And the State has
ponied up the money for the feasibility study. And the problem
is that with all that done, we have no idea of what is going to
happen. You guys have, I think, a $62 billion backlog. We are
in that big murky backlog some place. We have been unable to
develop much in the way of information about where your
priorities are in the backlog.
So when we have a CEO saying, I need to make decisions
here, and we can't help in any respect because there is no
transparency into how the Corps prioritizes the backlog, it
creates problems and it create effects out in the real world
where people actually need an answer on a date.
So I hope that we can find ways, as we are working on the
new WRDA bill, to try to get a little bit of sunlight into that
process, so that people like Hope Global can at least know
where they stand. The worst answer is no answer at all. What we
are stuck with is no answer at all. So I guess my question is,
do you have ideas for how to clarify that so that people can
have a sense of where in the $62 billion they stand, and will
you work with us on trying to get that fixed in this
legislation?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator, because I think that we are all
looking at the backlog in a way that we have to look at how we
are going to manage the assets that we have, and what is the
best Federal investment for what is in the backlog. If there is
a study or a project that has been there for a long period of
time with no local support or no Federal funding, it doesn't
make sense for us to have that even on the books any longer.
Currently, under current law, the deauthorization process, if a
project doesn't get money in 5 years, then it gets on the
deauthorization list. But I think your question is, OK, that
big list out there, who is on it, who is at the top and who is
in the middle and how do you decide that.
Senator Whitehouse. Other people count on those decisions,
and they need to know. We can't just have this happen in sort
of a bureaucratic limbo that may suit us in Congress and it may
suit the Administration. But the real people who are out there
depending on these projects are hurt by it.
Ms. Darcy. And they have to make investment decisions.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. And they can't.
The other question that I have has to do with, and I will
make it for the record, time is short, under the 2007 WRDA Act,
the Corps was encouraged to focus on natural systems and
natural buffers and defenses. And I guess I would ask as my
question for the record, you can get back to us in writing, how
many projects approved or understudied by the Corps since the
2007 WRDA bill have or have had as their final or recommended
alternative a plan that primarily uses non-structural and-or
ecosystem restoration approaches to solve the problem being
addressed by the project? So if you could take that as a
question for the record.
Ms. Darcy. I am not sure what the universe is, but I know
we can get you the number.
Senator Whitehouse. I would appreciate it. Thank you,
Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
I want to talk about how we are going to deal with the rest
of the hearing. I want to thank so many people for waiting a
long time. I think what this shows us is that our colleagues
are very interested in this. And that is a good thing. I want
to say to the Lieutenant General and to the Secretary how
appreciative we are of your patience with us and all these
questions.
So here is what we are going to do. I am going to hand the
gavel over to Senator Carper. When he leaves, he will hand it
over to Senator Vitter. Senator Vitter and I have a deal, he is
definitely going to repeal any environmental laws while he has
the gavel.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. We are just going to clarify.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. So I feel very comfortable.
So anyway, here is what is going to happen. I want to ask
if Mr. Johnson, Richard, would you raise your hand? I want to
thank you so much for being here. Richard is a very important
person to us, he is the Executive Director of the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency. In his testimony, he is going to
underscore the issues I raised, the levee vegetation, the
experience that we have there which we are so, we have kept
ahead of the floods so far. We have had our real serious
problems, but we know we are in danger.
If we are going to keep ahead of this, the worst of it, we
have to keep on moving. It is a pleasure always to work with
the various agencies in the State, plus Senator Feinstein, and
in this case Congresswoman Matsui and others. He will talk
about the Sacramento experience, he will also talk about the
crediting provisions, how do we know when to move forward at
home, will the Corps please let us know in a timely fashion if
what we are spending at the local level will be credited to us.
This is serious business. And in the new WRDA, we are going to
take these issues on.
I know that Senator Vitter has more questions. Obviously he
has had to deal with a lot of serious matters. So I have agreed
to give him the time for a second round, and then Senator
Carper, the rest of the hearing is up to you. I will turn this
over and I thank everybody.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Senator.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief,
covering two very important issues.
After my concern that I expressed earlier about the Corps
ignoring mandates, my second biggest concern is when the Corps
habitually misses and reasonable deadlines. As you all know,
because we have talked about it quite a lot, in my world, the
best-worst example of that is the Morganza to the Gulf Project.
This is the basic history of that project since 1992.
So we have a history since 1992, we still haven't started
construction. It involves two authorizations where the Corps
has basically missed deadlines or allowed other changes to
happen. So then the project is deauthorized.
First, there was a contingent authorization, if the Corps
produced a chief's report by a certain date. The Corps missed
the deadline. Second, in the last WRDA, I secured an
authorization and 2 months later was informed by the Corps, oh,
too bad, costs have gone up and you just broke your 902 limit.
Two months after we passed the language, after we had been
talking to the Corps about this, without hearing boo about the
cost issue, 902 limit issue, before that.
Most recently, General, as you know, we have missed another
deadline for December. We are shooting for a new report on the
project for mid-year. So my first question specific to the
project, are we on track to get that new report mid-year?
General Bostick. Yes, Senator, we released a post-
authorization report in January. In parallel with that, we are
doing a risk-based assessment through our risk assessment
center. We feel the preliminary feedback that we are getting
from that is going to allow us to reduce the cost that came out
when we talked last, the $10.6 billion. And based on where we
are now, we believe some time in the mid-summer timeframe, we
should be able to produce the report.
Senator Vitter. Thank you. As you know, General, that is
essential, or else this history continues with a third miss.
Madam Secretary, in cases like this, do you think there
should be any consequence to the Corps for missing major and
reasonable deadlines?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I think this shows that we need to look
at the way we are doing some of our planning processes and the
way that they are implemented. I think that we are looking
internally as to how we can better improve our planning
process. This is an example of ways we can look to, especially
the additions, and as you said, this has been in the works
since 1992. It is now 20 years later and here we are with no
project.
Because of many things, including Katrina and design
changes and there are reasons, but I do think that we need to
be accountable. We will strive to do that, especially in this
case.
Senator Vitter. I appreciate that. We are looking at those
accountability issues for everyone too, for the next WRDA. I
just think in the real world, negative consequences for missed
deadlines are part of accountability. In this case, the Corps
is essentially rewarded and not penalized. Because you don't
have to move forward and spend money. So in a sense, in terms
of the bureaucracy, you are rewarded for these missed
deadlines, not penalized.
The second issue, which I will submit for the record, is
about wetlands mitigation and the Modified Charleston Method as
it is now applied in the New Orleans district. As you know,
that has been extremely onerous and costly. I would submit two
questions regarding that for the record. First, do you think it
is appropriate that different districts use very different
wetlands mitigation standards? In my world, the Vicksburg
District next door uses a different standard that has lower
cost, so that St. Tammany Parish, a major county or parish in
Louisiana, is split between the two districts. So two very
different standards, two very different sets of cost.
The second question is, do you think it is appropriate that
local government and private folks have to use this new very
expensive Modified Charleston Method, but the Corps, in doing
its important post-Katrina work, does not? You all essentially
exempted yourselves from the higher, more expensive standard.
So those are my two questions submitted for the record.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator. We will get back to you on
those.
Senator Vitter. Thank you all very much.
Senator Carper. Secretary Darcy and General Bostick,
Senator Lautenberg just joined us and he has a question or two.
Then we will excuse you and bring on our second panel.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for the work that we are reviewing
today. The Corps is such an important agency that I don't think
at times we understand the contribution that the Corps
engineers do for us. So my hat is off to you. I just wanted to
say that what we learned from Sandy was not a good lesson. But
it is one that ought to stick with us for a long time.
When you look at things, let's be clear: our changing
climate means severe storms are going to be more and more
common, despite the doubters. And that mean the new WRDA bill
must make it permanent policy to build these infrastructure
projects stronger than before.
During the Sandy period, New Jersey also saw the limits of
our outdated water infrastructure when two water treatment
facilities were damaged, one plant leaking millions of gallons
of sewage into Newark Bay. So we need smart financing programs
to ensure our clean water infrastructure is modern and
effective.
I proceed to ask if we can count on you, Madam Secretary.
The Superstorm Sandy supplemental appropriations laws includes
vague language that could lead to some communities paying a 35
percent cost share if their planned Army Corps projects aren't
considered to be ongoing. Now, there may be some mystery
surrounding that that I am not familiar with. But it seems like
an unfair kind of a proposal. Shouldn't local governments with
projects that are ready for construction be eligible for a
Federal full cost share?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I believe the language in the bill for
ongoing construction, that that would be 100 percent Federal,
that within the Administration we are trying to make a
determination of what would be an ongoing project, whether it
is a shovel in the ground or if it is a study on the books that
is ready to go.
Senator Lautenberg. We have seen what happened in the areas
that accidentally I would call it, General, where there were
mitigation opportunities just because we did some replenishment
or put in some berms here and there. We found out that in those
communities, and New Jersey has a substantial shoreline for the
size of the State, they fared fairly well.
So when we have an opportunity now to look ahead, we should
have the funds, the resources to get this job done and include
serious mitigation programs where we have a chance. As the
planet continues to warm, events like Superstorm Sandy will
become more frequent. How is the Army Corps adapting its
project Development to reflect this new reality?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we have been, for the last several
years, actually, looking, part of our policy guidance and
developing new plans for projects has to consider sea level
change in every project that we look at. Because it is going to
happen and we need to be able to mitigate for it, or else be
able to build a project that will be resilient to that sea
level change.
We are building that not only into our planning, but also
within the Administration, we are looking at resiliency
criteria for building back projects as a result of Superstorm
Sandy.
Senator Lautenberg. So you understand, and by the way, you
had a good training ground to understand these problems. You
used to sit around with the group up here and you did very good
service there. We know that you will here as well.
Many of these projects were inadequate before the storm
hit. Fortunately, we were successful in allowing funding for
Sandy relief to be used to improve projects. Not just to
rebuild them as they were. And shouldn't the Corps be given
permanent authority to improve projects following these future
natural disasters?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we have current authority under 216 to
reevaluate an existing project. For example, if a shore
protection project outside of Avalon, New Jersey may have had a
certain level of protection in its authorized purpose. But in
looking at it now, post-Sandy, would it make sense to have a
different scope of project, would it make sense to have a
different height, would it make sense to have a different
footprint? We can do that evaluation under current authority.
If that evaluation determined that yes, there should be a
change made to that project, then it would need to be a new
authorization or a change to the existing authorization.
Senator Lautenberg. Coastal communities and businesses in
New Jersey were devastated by Sandy. But those projects
protected by Army Corps programs fared much better than those
that were not, even in places that were thought to be
particularly vulnerable, but where we had done work along the
way. Most of the homes there fared very well.
However, the beaches and dunes that protected many towns
were wiped away by the storm. Will the Corps expedite the
construction of these projects so the coastal communities are
protected in time for the hurricane season?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, under the supplemental, we are in the
process of looking at the projects that we will restore to pre-
storm conditions. We have about 16, I think, right now, that we
are looking at doing that for. Hopefully that will be able to
be accomplished before the next storm season.
General Bostick and I flew over the New Jersey coast the
day after Superstorm Sandy. We saw proof of what you just said,
the community of Avalon, which had a Corps of Engineers beach
replenishment project, the homes there were undamaged. We went
a mile up the coast that did not have a project, you could see
the difference. I think that in looking at that and looking at
also what we have to do, I think, in places like that, have to
look at the projects as a system, a systems approach to what it
is we are protecting and what damages we can do as a system
throughout not only New Jersey but as a coastal system, not
only for hurricane protection but these new kinds of storms, we
are seeing surges in addition to hurricanes. So that is what we
have to be able to put into our planning process and our
evaluation of what kind of project is going to work or provide
what kind of protection in the new kinds of storms that we are
seeing.
Senator Lautenberg. We had bad luck because we invited
several Senators from other States to take a look and
understand that it wouldn't be unlikely that one of those
States or several of them wouldn't be affected the same way we
were. Unfortunately, it was a helicopter trip down the coast,
and the fog was so think we couldn't take off. I didn't arrange
it, I promise you.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are quite welcome. Thank you.
We are going to excuse our panel. Madam Secretary, General,
thank you both very, very much for your presence today, your
responses and your willingness to respond further to questions
that are being asked in writing and for your leadership. Good
to see you both. Thank you.
And as Secretary Darcy and General Bostick leave, we will
welcome our second panel.
Gentlemen, welcome. It is great to see one of you for the
second time today, Secretary O'Mara, good to see you, and Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Turner, Mr. Graves, we are happy that you could be
with us today.
I am going to take just a moment to introduce Secretary
O'Mara, then turn the gavel over to Senator Vitter to introduce
a couple of folks from his neck of the woods, then we will
start the panel. I regret that I have a luncheon engagement
that I am supposed to be at in about 5 minutes, so I am not
going to be able to stay for nearly as long as I would like to.
I have read your testimonies, and especially appreciate
your testimony, Mr. Secretary.
Collin O'Mara is the Secretary of Delaware's Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, in my State. He is
the chief steward of Delaware's natural resources and leads our
State's efforts to improve air quality and public health to
ensure clean water, remediate contaminated sites, reduce
impacts from flooding and extreme weather events, expand
recreational opportunities and restore wildlife and fisheries
habitat. He has a lot going on, it is a great job. And he does
a wonderful job of meeting those responsibilities.
He also leads the State's Division of Energy and Climate
Change, where he works to secure cleaner, cheaper and more
reliable sources of energy. Since joining the Administration,
he has worked to modernize Delaware's energy sector,
spearheaded a range of innovative outdoor recreation and
conservation initiatives, and led the largest investment in
environmental and water resources infrastructure in our State's
history. All these initiative are focused on preparing Delaware
for current and emerging environmental and climate changes.
When Governor Jack Markell appointed Secretary O'Mara in
2009, he was the youngest State cabinet official in the Nation.
I remember saying, Senator Vitter, when Jack Markell, the
Governor, nominated Collin to serve, what is he doing
nominating a guy 29 years old? And somebody reminded me that
Joe Biden was elected a U.S. Senator from Delaware at 29, and I
was elected State treasurer at 29. So I said, oh, I think he is
probably ready for those responsibilities.
Collin, it is great to welcome you back to this hearing
room. We have been here a number of times, and we are grateful
you can do all those responsibilities, provide leadership on
regional and national issues as well, and also somehow convince
your bride to move to Delaware and to bring a little girl into
the world about 1 year ago this week. So for all that, we
congratulate you and thank you for your stewardship and the
great job you are doing.
With that, I am going to yield to Senator Vitter, and he is
going to run the show from here.
Senator Vitter [presiding]. Thank you, sir, and I also want
to welcome the Louisiana witnesses we have with us.
Garret Graves is currently the Chair of the Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, and
Executive Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Activities. The
CPRA was established after Hurricane Katrina as the State's
leading agency for hurricane protection, flood control and
ecosystem restoration, as well as other community resiliency
efforts.
Garret's efforts to restructure and streamline our coastal
programs and agencies has resulted in increasing project output
by more than 500 percent. The Authority currently oversees a
$17 billion coastal resiliency hurricane protection and oil
spill recovery program. Garret was also involved, and is, on an
ongoing basis, on recovery from the BP disaster. Before his
work in the State, he served many members up here very well,
including myself, Ted Stevens, Bill Tauzin and John Breaux.
Robert Turner is with us. Bob is a registered professional
civil engineer with 30 years of experience in the field of
engineering. He served as the regional director of the
Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Authority East since October
2007. That is the local flood control authority, one of the two
in the New Orleans area, that is very involved in all things
coastal protection and hurricane protection in that area. Bob
has extensive background in flood protection and public works,
including serving as the executive director of other levee
districts and similar organizations. He is a graduate of
Louisiana Tech University and a member of the American Society
of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete Institute.
I also want to acknowledge and welcome Richard Johnson.
Senator Boxer introduced Richard and alluded to him. Richard is
Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Authority.
Thanks to all of you, welcome and why don't we go in turn,
starting with Richard.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO
AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Good afternoon, Ranking Member Vitter. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Rick Johnson,
I am the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency.
I would like to just summarize my written comments right
now. First, we are very encouraged and appreciative of the
bipartisan efforts and commitment to move WRDA this year. We
are fortunate that Sacramento's flood issues are being
recognized by leaders like Chairman Boxer, Senator Feinstein
and Congresswoman Doris Matsui. We are grateful for that strong
support.
In recent years, the Corps has reviewed its various civil
works policies regarding flood protection. One of the more
controversial issues emerging is the Corps' implementation of
policies relating to woody vegetation on levees. This is
especially important in the central valley of California, where
there is significant remaining vegetation adjacent to and
sometimes on the levees. Our ongoing effort to strengthen and
improve 42 miles of levees, protecting the Natomas Basin in
North Sacramento, is an example of this.
Recognizing the complications associated with strict
compliance to the Corps' vegetation policy, we developed a plan
involving adjacent setback levees where they were feasible.
That design was approved by the Corps. However, there was one
section of levee where we had to propose a different design and
sought a variance from the Corps which was not approved.
Looking forward, we will face similar challenges in other parts
of our system.
The Corps' concept of addressing the worst first risks will
be important in this effort and elsewhere in the State. The
concept is that the most at-risk areas and factors be given
high priority for resolution, especially when funding is
constrained. We believe a wise application of this worst-first
concept is essential in successfully implementing the
vegetation policies. We support Section 2017 of the Chairman's
WRDA discussion draft, which addresses Corps' policies on
vegetation management. This is a positive step to assure a
flexible and collaborative process, especially taking into
account regional factors.
Another important challenge facing the Corps is the notion
of credit for work accomplished by State and local interest.
State and local governments can often do advanced work on a
project, thereby accelerating the schedule and lowering its
cost, and should not be penalized for those efforts.
I am pleased to say that the Corps has been supportive and
reasonable in its negotiations with us on past projects. I will
use the Natomas project again as an example. For this project,
the Corps approved four applications granting credit under its
Section 104 authority from the 1986 WRDA. As a result, we have
been able to complete reconstruction of the worst 18 of the 42
miles of levees, while the Corps completed their efforts on the
chief's report, thus allowing immediate risk reduction to more
than 100,000 people.
Though our experience regarding credits was favorable, the
Corps has recently revised its policies, increasing the
challenge that non-Federal partners face in obtaining credit
for their work. Facilitating non-Federal efforts and allowing
flexibility should be addressed in WRDA. Sections 2008 through
2011 of the Chairman's draft address various aspects of the
Corps' crediting policy, and we support the positive steps
taken in these provisions. We especially are supportive of the
language that addresses credits and access of required cost
sharing amounts for a project.
I would like to briefly address another provision in WRDA.
Section 1002 is vital to the Corps' water resources program and
we commend the committee for its creative approach to
authorizing projects. As the Chairman is well aware, we in
Sacramento have a very strong interest in this provision. Along
those lines, we offer our sincere appreciation to Senator
Feinstein and to Chairman Boxer for recently introducing Senate
Bill 197, the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act
of 2013. This legislation and Congresswoman Matsui's bills,
H.R. 135 and H.R. 136, are important acknowledgments of the
flood control needs in Sacramento.
In closing, Senator Vitter, thank you for allowing me to
appear before you today. We also appreciate the professionalism
and courtesy of your respective staffs. I will be happy to
respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Rick.
Now, Bob Turner.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. TURNER, P.E., CFM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Ranking Member Vitter.
For 7 years, our flood authority has been fully engaged
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority during the planning,
design and construction of the Hurricane and Storm Risk
Reduction System for the metropolitan New Orleans area. So
today I would like to share with you some observations and
recommendations from the perspective of a local levee owner who
has been in the trenches working with the Corps throughout this
historical civil works project.
There are clear indications that in the years since
Katrina, the Corps has made an effort to improve its relations
with the non-Federal sponsors through a partnering process.
There can be no doubt that significant progress has been made.
But in our opinion, there is room for additional improvement,
particularly when it comes to including the non-Federal sponsor
in critical portions of the work.
It is hard to feel like a valued team member when Corps
policy excludes you from participating in a project's
alternative evaluation process which is conducted during the
early planning phases of the design work. Decisions made in the
AEP set the stage for almost everything else that follows. So
we believe that policies and procedures should be modified to
not only allow, but encourage, non-Federal sponsor
participation in all project AEPs.
It is hard to feel much like a valued partner when Corps
policy prohibits you from examining details of negotiated final
fixed prices for early contractor involvement contracts, even
though the non-Federal sponsor must pay 35 percent of that
final negotiated price. So again, we think Corps policy needs
to be adjusted here.
The independent external peer review process that was a
result of language in WRDA 2007 I think needs some additional
work. Much of the value of an IEPR is lost if the reviewer's
comments on designs are not resolved before the designs are
sent to the field for construction. And to assure independence,
the Corps should revise existing policy to clearly define the
role of a non-Federal sponsor in the IEPR process. The non-
Federal sponsor should have the same access to the review
process and the review panel members as the Corps.
Requirements placed upon the non-Federal for documenting
and applying for credit for a work in-kind are extremely
complex and very confusing. We recommend that the Corps develop
a single document or guide for the non-Federal sponsor to guide
us in the collection and presentation of the data necessary to
support in-kind credits. The document should clearly define
what is and is not creditable and include examples of
acceptable submittal packages and suggested templates for use
in data collection and presentation.
My authority supports the development of a national levee
safety standard. The development and use of levee safety
standards will ultimately provide a means to measure the level
of risk reduction provided by existing levee systems and
improve the reliability of future levee projects and help
communicate the flood risk for those living behind levees. But
two major factors must be considered as national standards are
developed.
First, the standards must be well-founded in the best
available science and informed by input from levee owners and
operators and other Federal and non-Federal stakeholders.
Second, there must be a clear recognition that a one size fits
all approach is inappropriate. For example, some criteria
established for levees protecting densely populated urban areas
should be quite different from criteria used for levees
protecting low density rural areas. Standards should be
developed with this in mind and should be structured to allow
for decisions regarding the selection of project criteria to be
informed by risk.
Rising sea levels, coastal erosion and areal subsidence are
continuing to cause rapid loss of our coastal wetlands and
barrier islands in Louisiana. We believe that compensatory
mitigation is necessary when there are unavoidable impacts to
wetlands, even when those impacts result from levee owners
acting to fulfill their mission. But 18 months ago, the New
Orleans District adopted a new method for determining
compensatory mitigation called the Modified Charleston Method.
It appears that in its current form the Modified Charleston
Method will in some cases greatly increase the cost to mitigate
for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with flood risk
production projects.
So we would recommend that the New Orleans District revisit
and review the ratios and calculations used in that method in
coordination with the local stakeholders to confirm that they
are correct and appropriate for use along the Louisiana coast,
and that they properly take into account any positive impact
such flood protection projects might have in prolonging the
existence of wetlands that would otherwise quickly disappear
due to exposure to wave and storm surge.
In closing, on behalf of myself and the Board of
Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection
Authority--East, I would like to thank you once again for the
opportunity to come here and testify before you. We hope the
information provided will be helpful in your work and we look
forward to answering any questions you may have and assisting
the committee in any way that you might find helpful. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Bob.
Now, Collin O'Mara.
STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA, SECRETARY, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Ranking Member Vitter. I would like
to thank Senator Carper also for having me here today.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the
incredible support they have provided to coastal States like
Delaware over the past several years. The 3 million cubic yards
of sand that was put onto our beaches just prior to Hurricane
Sandy, in the 12 months before it, prevented hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of damage for a very small fraction
of that price. So I just want to thank this entire committee,
particularly some folks from the delegations in New York, New
Jersey and Delaware and Maryland that have been working closely
on storm recovery.
For Delaware, the work that the Army Corps performed to
improve resiliency, to improve navigation, to improve wildlife
habitat, is absolutely critical. Like many States, we have
found at times working with the Corps and their policies can be
challenging. We have had our battles over permits and projects.
But overall, I can say with confidence that the Corps is an
extremely important partner for our small State.
It has never been more important for the Army Corps to
fulfill its mission efficiently and cost effectively as we face
more extreme weather, more regular flooding, sea level rise. It
is absolutely critical to improve the resiliency of at-risk
communities and vulnerable natural resources. The provisions on
extreme weather preparedness drafted by Chairman Boxer are an
absolutely key component of this, and we fully support them in
Delaware.
We believe that modernizing the Corps' business model and
rethinking the current way that we approach projects on an
individual basis would both improve product outcomes but also
significantly reduce project costs. This includes more
flexibility to work with State and local governments, as my
colleagues have mentioned, better coordination with other
Federal agencies, especially FEMA, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and even EPA on infrastructure projects, and much
broader thinking that breaks down the silos within the Corps
and links projects and corporate benefits of multiple business
lines.
There are many ways we can accomplish this. For example,
many of my colleagues in Delaware and across the region have
supported a proposal to develop a North Atlantic Coastal Marine
Management Plan. This would allow the Army Corps' entire North
Atlantic Division to work with States to develop an integrated
management plan that is essential for ecosystem needs in
Delaware and along our neighboring States. Such an approach
acknowledges that our coast and coastal waters operate as a
system and should be treated like one when prioritizing
projects.
A similar systems-based approach could also help the Corps
maximize benefits between business lines. Right now, the Army
Corps has three separate lines of business: navigation, flood
and coastal storm damage reduction and environmental
enhancement. The Congress has traditionally authorized these
projects individually and then appropriated funding to these
three separate lines individually as well.
With growing needs and diminishing resources, it is
absolutely critical that we break down these silos between
these business lines to more formally and strategically connect
navigation and flood mitigation and habitation restoration
projects, as well as break down the divisions between different
levels of government. We recommend for the committee to
consider the formal adoption of an approach called regional
sediment management. Most States along the east coast have
multiple projects going on in the same region. You might have
an inlet and a harbor that needs to be dredged, a protective
beach or dune system that needs additional nourishment work, an
adjacent salt marsh for wildlife habitat that is starved of
sediment and that is drowning.
Each of these elements acts as a system with the sand, silt
and sediment moving from one area into another based on natural
processes. Under current policies and practices, and the stove-
piped funding, the Corps could receive separate funding to
maintain the channel, to nourish the beach or restore the
coastal wetland, but these projects would each be managed
separately.
Now, not only would a systems-based approach improve the
management of each of these projects, but it would lower the
price tag significantly. Individually, for example, these
projects might cost $5 million each for a small State like
Delaware and maybe $15 million total if you did all three
projects. But collectively, if you did them together, you might
be able to safe half that amount of money by just avoiding the
mobilization costs for dredging alone.
The Corps has already implemented some of these projects in
other places. But too often, the least-cost mandate that they
have prevents this type of efficiency, unless the authorization
and the appropriations for multiple projects happen to align
perfectly, which rarely happens.
Too often, clean and safe dredged material is treated like
a waste byproduct and is shipped overboard or sequestered into
a contained disposal facility. We really need to adopt a
systems-based approach that treats this clean sediment like the
valuable resource that it is, and then use it where it is
absolutely most valuable.
With a few changes in Corps authorization, we believe it is
possible to accomplish exactly this and save millions of
dollars. We are extremely grateful to Senator Carper for his
efforts in this area, and we encourage the committee to work
with him to improve regional sediment management practices. We
respectfully recommend five things. One, provide the authority
to prioritize regional sediment management projects within
WRDA, including recognizing and rewarding projects that have
these multiple benefits that cross business lines.
Second, formally recognize the link between storm damage
mitigation projects, environmental enhancement projects and
navigation projects, and the value of sediment in completing
all three. Third, continue making progress toward modernizing
the Corps' approach to fulfilling their mission, and by
encouraging systems management approaches rather than the
current project by project, line by line approach.
Fourth, expand the definition of the least-cost mandate for
navigation projects to include a full benefit analysis for
regional sediment management projects, to provide a true and
clear picture of what is gained by the Corps' work. And fifth,
provide greater discretion to the Secretary to expand the
boundaries of authorized projects if greater cost efficiencies
are possible.
We are extremely grateful for the tireless work of this
committee to improve the resiliency of our coastal assets and
we look forward to working with you as you consider WRDA
reauthorization in the year ahead. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Collin. I am
particularly glad you are here, so that Garret now realizes
that he is old.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. Garret Graves.
STATEMENT OF GARRET GRAVES, CHAIR, COASTAL PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION AUTHORITY OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate that.
Senator, I want to ask if a corrected version of my
testimony could be submitted for the record.
Senator Vitter. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. Senator, I am Garret Graves with the Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I want to commend the committee, as other folks have said,
for working in a bipartisan manner on a number of important
issues, including vegetation policy, levee safety, 902 limits
and of course, crediting. But also I want to ask you to take a
step back and remember the critical role that the WRDA bill and
natural Water resources play in our day to day lives.
Whether it is the wetlands and ecological productivity,
coastal Louisiana being one of the most productive estuaries on
the North American continent, whether it is the buffer role
that it plays. The Senator was here from Arkansas earlier.
Louisiana is the buffer for Arkansas in regard to hurricane
storm surge. And our buffer is those wetlands. And those
wetland are being lost at an extraordinary rate.
In fact, over the last several decades, we have lost
approximately 1,900 square miles of those wetlands, which is
equivalent to Senator Whitehouse's entire State, and virtually
the land area of the State of Delaware, with few efforts by the
Federal Government to actually restore those wetlands. And of
course, the seafood productivity associated with it, which
makes Louisiana the top producer of commercial seafood in the
continental United States.
On the navigation side, it is crystal clear that the most
efficient means of transportation from an ecological or an
economic perspective is maritime shipping. The Mississippi
River is America's commerce superhighway. It provides maritime
commerce for 31 States, and again, the most efficient means of
transportation.
On the flood control side, it is absolutely fundamental,
things like roads, hospitals, schools are very, very important.
But when you are trapped in your attic and your house is
underwater, those things become a lower priority. So it is
absolutely fundamental that flood control be prioritized.
Senator, the current project process for water resources,
by our estimation, but by the time you do a study, have it
authorized, you get new start funding, you have your
reconnaissance, your feasibility, your chief support, your
second authorization, and then your new start construction
funding. Our estimate is that that process takes approximately
40 years from conception to completion of a project.
In Louisiana, with the rate of land loss we are
experiencing, with the vulnerability of many of our
communities, as we recently saw in the northeast with Hurricane
Sandy, our communities don't have that kind of time. They don't
have 40 years to be protected and to have that type of
fundamental importance.
In Louisiana, we have two projects that are indicative of
that process. One of them is Morganza to the Gulf, that you
noted. We have been studying that project for 21 years, have
spent $72 million without putting a shovel in the ground. In
this era of budget challenges, I don't know how behavior like
that can be allowed to continue.
In regard to the Louisiana Coastal Area program, since
about 1995 or 1996, the Corps of Engineers has spent $100
million without building an acre of wetlands. I will say it
again. We are losing up to 20, 25 square miles of wetlands per
year. Much of that, the majority of that loss is the result of
Corps of Engineers actions.
As you noted earlier with mitigation policies, if that were
a private citizen, if it were the State of Louisiana
government, they would be required to mitigate for those
actions. The Corps is taking little to no action.
In addition, as Secretary O'Mara noted, the inflexibility
or the rigidness associated with these Corps projects is very
challenging. It actually prevents adaptive management and makes
us in many cases implement lower efficacy projects because of
the need to go back through the post-authorization change
process to come back and wait for another WRDA bill, we give up
and we say, look, we are just going to go implement a less
efficient project. It is backward, and it is not how any other
project process in the Federal Government is done.
If this process is so sacrosanct, if it makes so much
sense, if it is perfect, then let's use it for everything else.
And I assure you that the Federal Government would be shut down
very quickly if that were to occur.
Today in Louisiana we have areas that are vulnerable, just
as vulnerable as they were before Hurricane Katrina. We are
losing approximately a football field of wetlands every hour in
our State. The Corps of Engineers is having an extraordinary
challenge maintaining navigation channels in Louisiana,
including the Mississippi River, which is the most important
navigation channel in this Nation in regard to the volume of
hundreds and millions, billions of dollars in global commerce
that traverses that river.
We strongly support efforts by you, Senator, and other
members of the committee, to dedicate the harbor maintenance
tax to ensure that those channels can be maintained and to also
use those funds for beneficial use dredged materials, as
Secretary O'Mara noted.
Senator, one of the other issues that I think is important
to address is the accountability that you noted with the Corps
of Engineers. In many Federal laws, including WRDA 2007, the
Corps was directed, they shall perform certain actions by
certain dates. The State of Louisiana, in many cases, depended
upon those schedules. The Corps has had absolutely no
accountability. In fact, since Hurricane Katrina, they have
missed every single statutory deadline in WRDA or in
appropriations laws, which total somewhere around 15 or 17
different deadlines, again, with no accountability, therefore
disrupting our schedules and our budgets in the State of
Louisiana.
As Mr. Turner noted, the role of partnership of the non-
Federal sponsors is often relegated to a bystander. Yet we are
responsible for operations, maintenance, repair and
rehabilitation and replacement of many of these projects, in
fact, most of these projects. And we are forced to pay, or we
do pay a most share on the construction of the projects. But
again, largely relegated to a bystander status.
The last comment I want to make, Senator, this current
project process and the tens of billions of dollars in backlogs
in Corps projects, it leads folks in our States to a false
assumption that these projects are going to be built. People
have to make decisions on their homes, on their businesses, on
their families. If there is a belief that the Morganza to the
Gulf hurricane protection project is going to be built, people
make decisions based upon that. And this whole situation of
being in limbo I believe is even more dangerous than just
telling folks, you are not getting a project. And this entire
process needs to be expedited.
As you have said many times, Senator, the dollars are going
to be spent, and they can be spent proactively with a much
lower rate, or they can be spent exponentially more dollars
coming in after the hurricanes and responding to those
disasters in 2005, $150 billion and so far with Hurricane Sandy
an estimated $60 billion.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Garret.
I have a few questions and then we will wrap up. Garret,
you correctly noted that the normal Corps project authorization
and construction process is the most cumbersome, the most
multi-layered of any model I know of, Federal Government, any
other type of entity.
To all of you, what would be an alternative model, from
government or from any other appropriate sector, to use
instead? That is No. 1. No. 2, specifically, react to this
thought because Senator Bill Nelson and I have been working on
it, which is, for appropriate Corps projects, to allow the
State and/or local sponsor, non-Federal sponsor, to be the lead
agency, to be the project manager, if you will, rather than the
Corps, much as we do almost always with highway projects. We
have a Federal Highway Administration. It is not the lead
agency or the project manager for Federal highway projects. The
State DOT or a local entity is. If anybody wants to respond.
Mr. Graves. Senator, I would just quickly say that I think
the Federal Highway Administration model that you noted, and in
fact, this committee has jurisdiction over, is a perfect
example of an alternative approach that yields much greater
efficiencies in terms of schedules and dollars. I have reviewed
draft legislation and I think the approach that you and Senator
Nelson are working on, it is extraordinary, it is exactly what
needs to happen and will result in saving lives and saving
millions of dollars for this Nation.
I also want to make note, Senator, even alternative Corps
project implementation processes, like currently being put in
place in Hurricane Sandy, and also after Hurricane Katrina, the
Corps of Engineers actually did a pretty good job under the
alternative process. But the current one is clearly broken.
Senator Vitter. Anyone else?
Mr. O'Mara. I would like to agree with my colleague,
because I think Mr. Graves is exactly right. Some existing
authorities that we have been able to relax a little bit after
some of these storms to get projects on the ground quickly have
worked. We have seen some good projects come out of it. This
process that I am talking about, this regional sediment
management idea, we have been working very closely with our
shoreline administrator, Tony Pratt, who is sitting behind me.
This idea of trying to look at the region and identifying
multiple needed at the same time, run the projects together and
move toward more of a design-build type of approach like we
used for all kinds of local projects, can make a lot of sense.
The analysis is extremely important, but if it leads to
paralysis and avoids putting a project on the ground, as Mr.
Graves said, that is actually impacting the local residents'
ability to make decisions.
Then the idea of the lead agency, it is an interesting
idea. We are finding ourselves more and more having to take
that kind of responsibility for navigation projects as
secondary waterways in Delaware that have traditionally been
under the Corps' auspices, there is no funding for those
projects, but yet there are still local needs. So I think there
is a conversation to be had there on the transportation ideas
are interesting. I think we do have the ability to deliver
projects very quickly at the local level, if we had some
Federal support, Federal permits, things like that. So I
appreciate the suggestions.
Senator Vitter. Great. Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Johnson. I would just like to add, over the years, the
Corps has put in so many checks and balances in their process
that they have kind of added up and I believe added to the time
and process. We have reached a point where we are making all of
our decisions based on a benefit cost economic decision instead
of also including other factors that need to be involved.
I think if we were to reduce the amount of time, just
nailing down all the little details on the benefit cost ratio
and include other things like loss of life, other factors that
are very important in there, that we should be able to reduce
that time in the process and reach conclusions quicker, then
make those decisions and move forward.
Senator Vitter. Great. Bob.
Mr. Turner. I would like to also strongly agree with the
others that have spoken about this. I really like the idea of
using that transportation model for a number of reasons, one of
which is it brings a lot of focus to the flood control work
projects. In particular it makes it clear that they are part of
our infrastructure and perhaps would give us a better way to
dealing with the long-term operations and maintenance of those
types of things.
Senator Vitter. Great. Several of you also talked about
wetlands mitigation, huge challenge for us in Louisiana,
particularly with this new Modified Charleston Method. Do you
think it is appropriate that when you all are building a flood
control or wetlands protection project, you don't get any
credit for that, you essentially have exactly the same burden
as, say, a private developer, paving over and creating a huge
new parking lot for a shopping center? Do you think you should
get any credit for the fact that your project is protecting
against flooding and preserving valuable wetlands, which
clearly just won't be there but for doing this work?
Mr. Turner. I would like to address that. We have
jurisdictional authority over several levee districts that are
in the coastal area and border on the coast. Some of those
districts are losing wetlands at an alarming rate, which will
impact the new flood protection system that we have in the New
Orleans area and is going to, over time, as those wetlands
degrade, the level of protection that they are providing today
will not be there.
So I think we all recognize that we have to do something to
protect Louisiana's coast. But we also have to protect the
people that live there. I think it is a matter of setting
priorities, when we look at the tradeoffs between building
flood control projects and dealing with some of these issues of
coastal protection and restoration.
I think, and I have seen things that have been done that I
believe will work to accomplish both, where we can actually
build flood control projects and, at the same time, protect
those really vulnerable areas of our coast that, without a
doubt, in 10 years will not be here unless we do something to
provide some type of barrier against the storms that come in on
a regular basis, and just the normal everyday wave action.
So there is feeling among many of the coastal levee
districts that not enough emphasis is given to the value of
food control projects in that regard, as far as being able to
protect wetlands. I think that is one of the things that the
Corps should take a look at when they go back and look at the
Modified Charleston Method, to make sure they can capture that
when they determine what exactly needs to be done in order to
mitigate for those unavoidable impacts.
Senator Vitter. Anybody else?
Mr. Graves. Senator, I think that Secretary O'Mara noted
the role of the various types of projects. I think that
wetlands certainly play an important role and shouldn't be
discounted. But at the same time, it is fascinating to see how
important wetlands are to the Corps of Engineers in their
regulatory program, yet on their operations and maintenance
they cause literally a dozen square miles per year in loss and
they don't do anything about it. So the hypocrisy here is
rather extraordinary.
I do think that there are better ways to approach this,
perhaps more holistically. There are a number of ecosystem
restoration projects that are designed to restore wetlands and
I think that perhaps looking at more of a polling approach of
resources could be a much more efficient model, while resulting
in lower costs to the Federal Government and greater overall
ecological productivity.
Senator Vitter. To follow up on that, shouldn't there be
some way, at least for coastal parishes or counties, to be able
to put mitigation requirements on the coast, to be able to fund
those projects you are describing, which at least in the case
of Louisiana are keyed up and ready to go? Unfortunately, under
the present system, those two worlds hardly ever meet. There
are enormous mitigation requirements for everything you do in
South Louisiana.
But rarely, if ever, does it have any impact on the leading
true wetland crisis in Louisiana, which is a vanishing
coastline. There must be a way to marry those two.
Mr. Garret. Again, it is great to have a good prop here,
Secretary O'Mara, who by the way confided in me that he has had
multiple cosmetic surgeries and he is really 82.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Garret. He talked about breaking down these stove pipes
between the various programs. This is a perfect example. We
actually have situations where the Corps disposes of sediment
through their dredging program and then demobilizes the dredge.
We hire a second dredging company to come pick up and move the
exact same sediment for restoration projects.
Mr. O'Mara. We completely echo the same comment. We have
even had the same experience that Louisiana has had up until
fairly recently. Obviously we have had subsidence issues and
erosion and more intense coastal storms. But I think more and
more local residents are seeing the value of these ecological
restoration projects as that front line of defense.
There are some studies out there that if we just have a
half-meter of sea level rise over the next century, because
there is 11 percent of the land mass in the State of Delaware.
So this idea of having additional sediment coming into these
systems, and Garret is exactly right, there are these cases
where we are trying to restore coastal impoundments, put
additional sediment in, and it is the same sediment that right
now would go to a disposal facility and have no value at all,
treated like a landfill, basically.
So if there was additional authority, a lot of times the
cost, the additional cost to have that sediment used to protect
the wetland might be maybe 10 percent of the original project
cost. But because it doesn't meet that least-cost alternative,
it will either go overboard or into the containment facilities.
So if there is any flexibility provided through WRDA to let
folks make that academic argument, because you can avoid the
entire other project, which needs mobilization and permits and
everything else. We would save millions of dollars, easily,
every year, in pretty much every State that has this kind of
work done.
Senator Vitter. Great.
I want to thank all of you again, not just for your
testimony, but for your ongoing work. We will depend on your
input and insights as we continue to put together the next
WRDA.
Thank you very, very much. With that, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]