[Senate Hearing 114-800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Murkowski, Hoeven,
Lankford, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, and Coons.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS), CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE--CIVIL
ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. BOSTICK, LIEUTENANT GENERAL,
COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
------
ESTEVAN R. LOPEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ACCOMPANIED BY TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WATER
AND SCIENCE
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development will please come to order.
Today's hearing will review the President's fiscal year
2017 budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Department of
Interior. This is the subcommittee's second budget hearing this
year, and we will have two more budget hearings in the coming
weeks.
Now, we are going to change our procedure just a little
bit, but it will not hurt to have a little more relaxed and
informal hearing. We have four votes on the Senate floor that
are scheduled to begin now, and I will give my opening remarks,
and then will turn to Senator Feinstein for her remarks. Once
Senator Feinstein and I have given our opening statements, we
will take a brief recess to allow Senators to vote and come
back, or if a Senator is here, we will just continue the
hearing, alternating in between Senator Feinstein as Chairman
of the Committee.
To allow Senators enough time to ask their questions, I am
going to ask each Senator to withhold their opening remarks,
and I ask unanimous consent that any written statements
Senators would like to submit be included in the hearing
record.
Our witnesses' written testimony, which we have, will also
be included in the hearing record, and I would ask you to
withhold your opening statements. And then as soon as Senators
arrive, we will recognize them one by one for their 5 minutes
of questions and conversations. And if there is anything in
your opening statement that you would like to say when you
answer questions, there will be plenty of time to say that.
So basically during these votes, which are going to last
about an hour and a half, we will have alternating Senators.
But I hope we can continue to have our hearing all the way
through the end--to the end. Several Senators had expressed an
interest in coming today, and I know for certain that Senator
Feinstein will be here.
Our witnesses today include Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Ms. Darcy has been
serving as the Assistant Secretary since 2009, and she has told
me this may be her last budget hearing before this committee. I
want to thank her for her many years of public service. I have
enjoyed working with her both publicly and the visits we have
had in our offices, and including her time working on the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. So thank you,
Secretary Darcy, for being here today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Thank you Chairman Alexander and distinguished members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to present the President's Budget for
the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2017. We are pleased to have an opportunity to further expand on the
Administration's priorities and goals. Those priorities include
promoting resilient communities to address current and future impacts
of climate change and sea level rise; fostering and maintaining strong
partnerships with local communities; and practicing sustainability and
sound stewardship across all our missions. I also want to take this
opportunity to touch on points that this Committee has raised in the
past.
This year's Civil Works Budget reflects the Administration's
priorities through targeted investments in the Nation's water resources
infrastructure that will reduce flood risk to communities; facilitate
commercial navigation; and restore degraded aquatic ecosystems.
The 2017 Civil Works Budget provides $4.62 billion in discretionary
appropriations for the Army Civil Works program, focusing on
investments that will yield high economic and environmental returns or
address a significant risk to safety.
The Budget focuses on funding our three major mission areas:
--42 percent of funding is allocated to commercial navigation,
--26 percent to flood and storm damage reduction, and
--8 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Other practical, effective, sound investments include allocating
$196 million of the Budget to hydropower, $200 million to regulatory
activities, and $103 million to the clean-up of sites contaminated
during the early years of the Nation's nuclear weapons program.
The Civil Works program, which this Budget supports, relies on the
strong relationships between the Corps and local communities; these
strong relationships allow us to work together to meet their water
resources needs across all of our missions, as well as to address
broader water resources challenges that are of concern at the national
or regional level.
The Budget supports a Civil Works program that has a diverse set of
tools and approaches to working with local communities, whether this
means funding studies and projects with our cost-sharing partners, or
providing planning assistance and technical expertise to help
communities make better-informed decisions.
planning modernization
The Budget supports the continued implementation of Corps efforts
to modernize its planning process. The Budget provides funding in the
Investigations account for 49 feasibility studies, and funds 12 of them
to completion.
The Budget reflects full implementation of the SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed, Timely) planning initiative,
under which each feasibility study is to have a scope, cost, and
schedule that have been agreed upon by the District, Division, and
Corps Headquarters. The Budget supports efficient funding of these
studies.
Studies generally are funded with the presumption that they will
complete in 3 years and for $3 million ($1.5 million Federal). In the
first year, the Corps will work to identify the problem, develop an
array of alternatives, and begin the initial formulation. The bulk of
the study costs are anticipated to be incurred during year two, as the
alternatives are narrowed down and a Tentatively Selected Plan is
identified, which requires more detailed feasibility analysis and
formulation. During the third year, the focus is on completing the
detailed feasibility analysis, State and agency review, and finalizing
the Chief's Report. There are some exceptions to this funding stream,
such as where an increase in the study cost or an extension in the
study schedule is appropriate based on factors such technical
complexity, public controversy, the need for more detailed work to
address a specific issue, or the overall cost of a proposed solution.
Over the past 3 years, the Corps began 29 new studies and resumed
10 studies. The fiscal year 2017 Budget focuses on managing these and
other ongoing studies and bringing them to a conclusion. It includes
funding for 14 studies and three preconstruction engineering and design
efforts previously funded only through the annual Corps work plans.
Among the studies budgeted for the first time this year are two of the
feasibility studies that were recommended as focus areas in the North
Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study, nine studies that are starting in
fiscal year 2016, and three disposition studies under the Disposition
of Completed Projects remaining item.
The Water Resources Priorities Study is one of the 10 studies
started in the fiscal year 2016 work plan. This study will address the
critical need to develop a baseline assessment of the Nation's
vulnerability to flood damages on both a national and regional scale.
First, a baseline assessment will identify and analyze the key drivers
of flood risks, including the ways in which some of those risks are
changing or expected to change over time. The study will then examine
the effectiveness of existing Federal, State, and local programs, and
develop recommendations to improve these programs to reduce the
economic and life safety risk associated with large-scale flood and
storm events in ways that will also promote the long-term
sustainability of communities and ecosystems.
The Budget also helps to further combat the spread of invasive
species by its proposals for funding work associated with the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS). The Budget
supports efforts to reduce the risk of interbasin transfer of aquatic
nuisance species through the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) in the
vicinity of Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The Brandon Road effort will
assess the viability of establishing a single point to control the one-
way, upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species from the Mississippi
River basin into the Great Lakes basin near the Brandon Road Lock and
Dam located in Joliet, Illinois. The Budget includes funding to
continue this effort.
Among the 12 feasibility studies funded to completion is the
Mississippi River Hydrodynamic Model--Delta Management Study under the
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Program. This greater than
$25 million study effort will identify options to address the long-term
sustainability of the lower Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and provide
a model to assess the effects on navigation and sediment dynamics along
the Mississippi River main stem associated with combinations of
Mississippi River diversions.
Investigation funds are also provided to continue to support State
and local flood risk mitigation priorities through the ``Silver
Jackets'' program. The Corps currently supports participation on
``Silver Jackets'' team in 44 States and the District of Columbia
through which technical assistance activities are being implemented
that support State and local community flood risk and floodplain
management priorities.
construction
The Budget for the construction program includes funds to complete
six construction projects, continue 27 ongoing projects, and start one
new project. The one new construction project, Mud Mountain Dam in
Washington State, involves construction of a fish passage facility to
address a Biological Opinion.
Flood and Storm Damage Reduction
The Budget includes $404 million for flood and storm damage
reduction projects and remaining items, and funds the American River
Watershed (Folsom Dam Modification), CA project and the Topeka, KS
project to completion.
Over the last several years, Congress has funded the dam safety
program at a lower level than the Budget, based on revisions of
capabilities that the Corps has provided to Congress subsequent to the
Budget submission. These revisions--often but not always showing a
lower capability than requested in the Budget--are caused by a variety
of factors, including savings from contract awards, process
efficiencies, and changed conditions. The Budget includes $239 million
(not including $21 million for the Dam Safety remaining item) for the
dam safety program that, when coupled with anticipated unobligated
carryover balances on these important projects, will ensure that each
of the Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) I and DSAC II projects
funded in the Budget is able to progress efficiently and effectively to
implement a risk reduction strategy for these structures.
Coastal Navigation
The Budget includes $105 million for coastal navigation and
remaining items and funds the Oakland Harbor, CA (50-foot Deepening)
project and the Delaware River Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE project to
completion. The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, GA project is funded
at $42.7 million, which is over a 100 percent increase from the fiscal
year 2016 Budget. The Columbia River at the Mouth, OR & WA project is
funded at a level that will enable efficient progress toward mitigating
the life safety risk that is presented by the deteriorated jetties.
Inland Navigation
The Budget funds inland waterways construction and remaining items
at $246 million, of which $33.75 million will be financed through the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) for the Olmsted Locks and Dams, IL &
KY project, which at $225 million is funded at the highest amount ever
budgeted for this project. With the passage of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), the Olmsted Locks and
Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky project is now cost-shared 85
percent General funds and 15 percent IWTF. This change reduced the cost
of this project to the navigation users by around $500 million, and
increased the amount that Federal taxpayers will have to pay by an
equivalent amount. In the ABLE Act, the Congress also increased the tax
on diesel fuel used in commercial transportation on certain of the
inland waterways. As a result of both of these changes, over the next
few years there will be somewhat more money in the IWTF to support the
user-financed share of inland waterways capital investments.
The Administration--as it has in recent years--will propose
legislation to reform the way that we finance capital investments for
navigation on the inland waterways. The Administration's proposal
includes a new user fee to produce additional revenue to help finance
long-term future investments in these waterways to support economic
growth. We would like to work with the Congress to enact this
legislation.
The Corps is also finalizing a Capital Investment Strategy for the
inland waterways. The Corps has coordinated this effort with
stakeholders and the Inland Waterways Users Board to provide an
opportunity for their input. The process will include an estimate of
the investment need over the next 20 years and objective nationwide
criteria to provide a framework for deciding which capital investments
should have priority for funding from a national perspective. While
this Strategy will provide a benchmark, it is a conceptual plan and
does not take the place of normal Budget processes or commit the
Government to future actions.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
The Corps continues to contribute to the Nation's efforts to
restore degraded environments; to that end, the Budget for the Corps
funds restoration of several large aquatic ecosystems that have been a
focus of interagency collaboration, including the California Bay-Delta,
the Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf
Coast. Other funded efforts include the Columbia River, and priority
work in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
operation and maintenance
The Budget provides $2.705 billion for Operation and Maintenance,
with $1.122 billion for operation and $1.414 billion for maintenance,
and an additional $169 million for remaining items. This encompasses a
wide range of activities, from operating and maintaining our locks and
dams to monitoring the condition of dunes and berms that reduce the
risk of flooding in a hurricane from wave action and storm surges,
running the Corps recreation facilities that are visited by millions of
Americans each year, and helping us be responsible stewards of the
lands associated with Corps projects and operate them in an
increasingly sustainable fashion.
For example, the Budget helps us maintain and improve our efforts
on sustainability. We are reducing the Corps' carbon footprint by:
--increasing renewable electricity consumption,
--reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
--reducing non-tactical vehicle petroleum consumption.
We are also making important investments to promote the sustainable
management of Corps-owned lands, waters and cultural resources. The
Budget provides $9.6 million to update 24 Master Plans and initiate
work on 26 others that govern how we manage our facilities, which will
helps us make better decisions about how to use the land and keep it
healthy; $12 million to address impacts from invasive plants and
animals at Corps facilities; and $6.9 million for enhancements and
protections for habitat in support of the National Strategy to Promote
the Health of Honey Bees and other Pollinators.
The Budget also provides $35.5 million for the levee safety
program, which will help ensure that Federal levees are safe and in
line with the Federal Emergency Management Administration standards.
The overall condition of the inland waterways has continued to
improve over the last few years. The number of lock closures due to
preventable mechanical breakdowns and failures lasting longer than one
day and lasting longer than one week has decreased significantly since
fiscal year 2010. However, the lock closures that do occur result in
additional costs to shippers, carriers, and users. That is why the
Budget continues to provide a high level of funding to operate and
maintain the inland waterways, with emphasis on those that together
carry 90 percent of the commercial traffic.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
The Budget provides $951 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) to maintain coastal channels and related work, which is the
highest amount ever budgeted. This includes almost 11 percent for Great
Lakes harbors, 10 percent for emerging harbors, $856 million from the
O&M Account, $2 million from the Mississippi River & Tributaries
account, and $65 million from the Construction account.
research and development
Research, Development, and Technology is a component of the Science
and Technology portfolio of the Corps and continues to address key
strategic technology needs to inform policy-making and business
processes. The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes $18.1 million for
research and development. This funding will be used to extend the
service life of water resources infrastructure through research, use of
novel materials, and technology transfer. The Research, Development,
and Technology program enhances our capabilities to facilitate marine
transportation, assist flood and coastal storm preparation and recovery
efforts, restore aquatic ecosystems, pursue sustainable environmental
management, and respond to changing environmental conditions.
remaining items
The Budget includes $276 million for remaining items, including $55
million in the Investigations account, $44 million in the Construction
account, $169 million in the Operation and Maintenance account, and $8
million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Account.
Annual funding for these remaining items is determined based on
current needs, such as the increased focus on technical assistance to
States and local communities to improve resilience to climate change.
regulatory program
The Budget includes $200 million for the Regulatory program.
alternative financing and public-private partnerships
As part of looking to the future of the Army's Civil Works program,
we continue to consider potential tools to expand and strengthen our
already strong partnerships, especially in the area of Alternative
Financing. As part of this effort, we are actively talking with
potential non-Federal partners about their ideas for how we can work
together and soliciting suggestions and best practices from others in
the Federal Government with experience in this area.
Increasingly, some non-Federal sponsors have been contributing or
advancing funds for work that is authorized to be funded at Federal
expense. In such cases, the project beneficiaries assume more (or all)
of the cost. Before entering into an agreement to accept such funds,
the Corps carefully evaluates its overall workload to ensure that
execution of the proposed work will not adversely affect our directly-
funded programs, projects and activities.
veterans curation program
Finally, this Budget provides $6.5 million for the Veterans
Curation Program, which was started in 2009 with support from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This program offers veterans
the opportunity to learn tangible work skills and gain experience by
rehabilitating and preserving federally owned or administered
archaeological collections found at Corps projects.
Thank you all for attending today. General Bostick will provide
further remarks on the Army Corps of Engineers 2017 Budget.
Senator Alexander. Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick is
the Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He
has been serving as Chief of Engineers since 2012. Time goes
awfully fast. This will be his last hearing before this
subcommittee I am told, and I want to thank General Bostick. He
has been responsive and straightforward to me as well as to
other Senators, and I am deeply grateful for his many years of
service to our country.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable Jo-Ellen
Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2017 Budget for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works Program. This is my fourth
and final time before this Subcommittee to testify on the Civil Works
budget; thank you for your support in the past, and I look forward to
continuing to work together during the remainder of my tenure as Chief
of Engineers.
I have been in command of the Corps for nearly 4 years, and I want
to briefly update you on the four Campaign Plan Goals for the Corps.
First, Support National Security. The Corps supports the National
Security efforts of the United States. We continue working across the
globe with presence in more than 110 countries, using our Civil Works,
Military Missions, and Water Resources Research and Development
expertise to support our Nation's Combatant Commanders. We are proud to
serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens, and we are proud of
the work the Corps does to support America's foreign policy. Civilian
Army Corps employees from across the Nation have volunteered--and
continue to volunteer--to work, in a civilian capacity, to provide
critical support to our military missions abroad and humanitarian
support to the citizens of those nations. Many of these volunteers have
served on multiple deployments.
Second, Transform Civil Works. The four elements of the Civil Works
Transformation strategy will make the Corps more efficient and
effective while continuing to support the Nation by addressing some of
our greatest infrastructure needs. Civil Works Transformation focuses
on modernizing the project planning process; enhancing the budget
development process through a more streamlined process and the use of a
systems approach, to identify and deliver more holistic outcomes to the
Nation; evaluating the portfolio of existing water resources projects
to support risk-informed investment decisions, identify priorities, and
develop better solutions to water resources problems; and improving
methods of delivery to produce and deliver quality products and
services.
Since the inception of Civil Works Transformation efforts in 2008,
58 Chief's reports have been completed, with 45 Chief's Reports
completed in the last 4 years alone; we are learning and continue to
become more efficient in our processes.
Third, we must continue to be proactive and develop better
strategies to Reduce Disaster Risks, as well as respond to natural
disasters when they do occur, under the National Response Framework,
National Disaster Recovery Framework, Public Law 84-99 as amended, and
Corps project authorities for flood risk management. I continue to be
amazed at the work the Army Corps does in this arena. For example, the
Corps provided technical expertise to the State of South Carolina
during its historic flooding last year by assisting in inspecting over
600 locally owned dams to assess dam safety vulnerability. More
recently, the Corps teamed with local communities and State-led Army
National Guard units during the Mississippi River floodfight to help
impacted communities in the flood's aftermath. Additionally, I am
pleased to report to you that all of the Federal flood risk reduction
systems along the Mississippi performed as designed, demonstrating the
effectiveness of the investments made.
Fourth, Prepare for Tomorrow. This is about our people--ensuring we
have a pipeline of the best Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics personnel, as well as strong Workforce Development and
Talent Management programs. Efforts to tailor development programs to
employee aspirations is helping to maximize talent retention and is
instilling a career of service culture. We take seriously the
importance of engaging and retaining our talented workforce and have
significantly improved our agency ranking in the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey over the past year, on the list of best places to work
in the Federal Government. Equally important is helping the Nation's
Wounded Warriors and transition out of active duty to find fulfilling
careers. Last year, we set a goal to assist 150 transitioning Wounded
Warriors. I am proud that we achieved more than double that goal. We
assisted over 300 Wounded Warriors in finding permanent positions
within the Corps and other organizations. Over the past 3 years, we
have helped 631 Wounded Warriors find meaningful careers.
We are equally focused on Research and Development efforts to help
solve a host of the toughest challenges facing the Army and the Nation.
Our Civil Works Program research and development efforts provide the
Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency of the Nation's
engineering and construction industry, and through providing more cost-
effective ways to operate and maintain public infrastructure, Civil
Works program research and development contributes directly to the
national economy.
summary of fiscal year 2017 budget
The fiscal year 2017 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based
budget, and reflects a focus on the work that will provide the highest
net economic and environmental returns on the Nation's investment or
address a significant risk to safety. Investments by the Civil Works
program will reduce the risks of flood impacts in communities
throughout the Nation, facilitate comercial navigation, restore and
protect significant aquatic ecosystems, generate low-cost renewable
hydropower, and support American jobs. Continued investment in critical
Civil Works infrastructure projects is an investment in the Nation's
economy, security, and quality of life--now and in the future.
The Budget focuses on high-performing projects and programs within
the three main water resources missions of the Corps: commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes $4.62 billion in
gross discretionary funding for Civil Works activities throughout the
Nation, including the construction of water resources projects that
will provide high economic, environmental and public safety returns on
the Nation's investment.
The Budget also proposes the necessary level of funding for the
Regulatory program to protect and preserve water-related resources of
the Nation.
investigations program
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $85 million in the
Investigations account, and $7 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account to evaluate and design projects within the Corps
three main mission areas, with emphasis on those that are potentially
the most promising on a performance basis; and for related work,
including some research and development. The Budget also supports the
Corps planning and technical assistance programs, including using its
expertise to help local communities increase their resilience to, and
preparedness for, flood risks such as the flood risks in coastal
communities associated with hurricanes and sea-level rise.
construction program
The Budget provides $1.09 billion for the construction program in
the Construction account, and $64 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account, prioritizing projects with the greatest net
economic and environmental returns per dollar invested, as well as
projects that address a significant risk to safety. The Budget includes
funds for one high-priority construction new start: Mud Mountain Dam,
Washington. In keeping with our Civil Works transformation strategy,
the Budget provides construction funding to complete six projects, and
deliver their benefits to the Nation.
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps uses
objective performance measures to allocate this funding. For projects
that are being funded primarily due to their economic return, these
include benefit-to-cost ratios. For projects funded on the basis of
their environmental return, priority is given to those projects that
are highly effective at restoring degraded structures, functions or
processes of significant aquatic ecosystems on a cost-effective basis.
The selection process also prioritizes dam safety assurance, seepage
control, static instability correction projects, and those that address
a significant risk to safety.
operation and maintenance (o&m) program
All structures age and, over time can deteriorate, causing a
potential decline in reliability. With proper maintenance and periodic
rehabilitation, however, we can extend the effective life of most of
the facilities owned or operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps for
many years. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to
ensure that key features continue to provide appropriate levels of
service to the American people.
The Corps is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
its operation and maintenance program. The Budget focuses on
investments that address infrastructure maintenance needs on a risk
assessment basis. In fiscal year 2017, the Corps will further expand
the implementation of a modern asset management program, dedicating an
increased amount of its O&M funding to the key features of its
infrastructure and for work that will reduce long-term O&M costs in
real terms. The Budget also supports an energy sustainability program
and pursues efficiencies in the acquisition and operation of our
information technology.
The Budget for the operation and maintenance program provides
$2.705 billion in the O&M account, and $151 million in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account, with a focus on the operation and
maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood risk management,
hydropower and other facilities. The Budget gives priority to coastal
ports and inland waterways with high levels of commercial traffic, and
includes $951 million for work financed through the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. The Budget also funds some small ports, with emphasis on
those that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, or
public transportation benefits. The Budget provides O&M funding for
safety improvements at Federal dams and levees based on the risk and
consequence of a failure. According to our analyses, 297 of the 709
dams in our current inventory have required some form of modification
or interim risk reduction measure, or may require them over the next 50
years, if they are to continue to serve their authorized purposes. Many
interim risk reduction measures have been implemented already and
additional measures are considered and evaluated as new and existing
issues are identified.
Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or
operated by the Corps, including administrative buildings and
laboratories. Work to be accomplished includes: operation of locks and
dams along the inland waterways; dredging of inland and coastal Federal
channels; operating multi-purpose dams and reservoirs for flood risk
reduction, hydropower, recreation, and related purposes; maintenance
and repair of facilities; monitoring of completed projects; and general
management of Corps facilities and the land associated with these
purposes including work to serve as a responsible steward of the
resources on Corps lands.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $194 million in the O&M
account for hydropower activities in order to maintain basic power
components such as generators, turbines, transformers and circuit
breakers at Corps hydropower facilities to keep them operating
efficiently and effectively. The Corps is the largest hydropower
producer in the U.S., operating 24 percent of the Nation's hydropower
capacity.
reimbursable program
Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS)
Reimbursable Program, the Civil Works program assists other Federal
agencies, State, local, Tribal governments, and those of other
countries with timely, cost-effective solutions to support their
programs. These agencies can turn to the Corps, which already has these
capabilities, rather than develop their own internal workforce and
expertise to oversee project design and construction. Such
intergovernmental cooperation is effective for agencies and the
taxpayer, and uses the skills and talents that we bring from our Civil
Works and Military Missions programs. The work is principally technical
oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction projects--the work itself is typically performed by
private sector firms--is financed by the agencies we service. IIS
Reimbursable Program activities in support of our domestic stakeholders
totaled $657 million in fiscal year 2015. We only accept agency
requests that are consistent with our core technical expertise, in the
national interest, and that can be executed without impacting our
primary mission areas.
emergency management
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $30 million in funding for the
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to enable the Corps to
prepare for emergency operations in response to natural disasters. The
Budget for the emergency management program also includes $4.5 million
for the National Emergency Preparedness Program.
An additional $3 million is included in the Investigations account
for the Corps participation in the development and expansion of
intergovernmental teams, known as Silver Jackets, which collaboratively
reduce the risks associated with flooding and other natural hazards.
The Silver Jackets program is an innovative program, which provides a
national forum to address State and local flood risk management
priorities. Each team is developed at the State level. The teams share
lessons learned at the State level with each other, and each team works
to apply the available Federal and State resources effectively to meet
its State's flood risk management priorities. There are now 45 active
teams (44 States and the District of Columbia); our goal is to have a
Silver Jackets team for every State. The flooplain management program
of the Corps complements this effort by providing technical assistance.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2017 Budget represents a continuing, fiscally
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
restoration of its aquatic ecosystems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is committed to a performance-based Civil Works Program, based on
innovative, resilient, and sustainable risk-informed solutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee. This concludes
my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you or other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Alexander. Estevan Lopez is Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. As far as I know, he is not going
anywhere right now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Estevan Lopez
Thank you Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members
of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the
President's fiscal year 2017 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. I
appreciate the time and consideration this Subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding Reclamation's budget, projects, and
programs and I look forward to working with the Committee in the future
as Reclamation continues to address water issues in the West.
Reclamation is committed to prioritizing and implementing its overall
program in a manner that serves the best interest of the American
public.
The Budget sustains our efforts to deliver water and generate
hydropower, consistent with applicable Federal and State law, in an
environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner. It also supports
the Administration's and Department of the Interior's (Department)
priorities to ensure healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water
supplies; build a landscape-level understanding of our resources;
celebrate and enhance America's great outdoors; power our future;
strengthen Tribal nations; and engage the next generation.
The extreme and prolonged drought facing the western States affects
major U.S. river basins throughout the West. Exceptional drought in
many western States, specifically California, Nevada, Washington, and
Oregon, affects households across the country because of the adverse
impact on agricultural production. Drought is estimated to cost the
Nation billions of dollars and impact thousands of jobs. In California
alone, the estimated cost of the 2015 drought on agriculture--crop
production, livestock, and dairies--is $2.7 billion with a total loss
of 21,000 seasonal and part-time jobs. The effects of the current
drought on California's Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, its
water, its agricultural economy, and its communities are particularly
acute. The Colorado River Basin--crucial for seven States and several
Tribes, in addition to two countries--is also enduring historic
drought. Nearly 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its
tributaries for some, if not all, of their municipal needs. The Basin
is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history; the period from
2000 through 2015 was the driest 16-year period in more than 100 years
of record keeping. In 2015, Lake Mead, behind the Hoover Dam on the
Colorado River, has declined to its lowest elevation since the 1930's.
Snowpack, which functions as reservoir storage for many western basins,
is diminishing.
Water year 2016 is shaping up to be influenced by the periodic ``El
Nino'' anomaly associated with warmer ocean temperatures in portions of
the Pacific, a phenomenon that generally leads to a wetter than normal
year in areas of the western U.S., including California. However, one
wet year alone will not alleviate the impacts of the multi-year
drought. This water year exists against the backdrop of long-term
sustained climatic change; both short-term and long-term droughts are
expected to intensify. Although Reclamation continues to emphasize
strategic priorities and operational activities to understand, and
effectively adapt to, the risks and impacts of a changing environment
on western water management, groundwater must be replenished before
runoff can fill rivers and reservoirs, and the hydrologic system as a
whole will need time to recover. As one of the Nation's primary
suppliers and protectors of water, Reclamation needs to continue to
plan and prepare for the next drought and its successors, despite
cautious optimism in 2016.
This Budget addresses Reclamation's priorities by allocating funds
based on objective and performance-based criteria to most effectively
implement its management responsibilities for water and power
infrastructure in the West. Reclamation's goals and priorities--
including water supply reliability and power generation, climate
variability adaptation, water conservation, aging infrastructure, sound
science to support critical decisionmaking, and ecosystem restoration--
were balanced in the formulation of the fiscal year 2017 budget.
Reclamation continues to look at ways to more efficiently plan for the
future challenges confronting water resources management, and to
improve the way it does business.
In order to meet Reclamation's mission goals, we are building a
landscape-level understanding of our resources and the protection and
restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by our
operations. This budget is focused on meeting National priorities for
Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, and healthy
watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies. Further details of
these efforts will now be discussed.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2017 Budget for Water and Related Resources,
Reclamation's principal operating account, is $813.4 million, a
reduction of $305.6 million from 2016 enacted. This reflects the
budgetary shift of $106.2 million from this account to establish a
separate Indian Water Rights Settlement Account, and $36.0 million to
establish a separate discretionary account within the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
The Budget includes a total of $383.5 million at the project and
program level for water, energy, land, fish and wildlife resource
management, and development activities. This provides for planning,
construction, water sustainability activities, management of
Reclamation lands, including recreation areas, and actions to address
the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife.
The Budget also provides a total of $429.9 million at the project
level for water and power facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities. Reclamation emphasizes safe, efficient,
economic, and reliable operation of facilities, ensuring systems and
safety measures are in place to protect the facilities and the public.
Providing adequate funding for these activities continues to be one of
our highest priorities.
highlights of the fiscal year 2017 budget for water and related
resources
I would like to share with the Committee several highlights of
Reclamation projects and programs within the Administration's Budget.
The Budget continues to promote and support efficient water management,
increased renewable energy production, the construction of new
infrastructure and sound maintenance of existing facilities,
restoration of aquatic environments, and the continued use of applied
science and new technologies to help safeguard sustainable water
deliveries and energy production. As a result, Reclamation continues to
play an important role in providing a strong foundation for economic
activity across the American West.
WaterSMART Program.--One method Reclamation employs to stretch
water supplies in the West and prepare for these ongoing challenges is
the WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow)
Program. The programs included in WaterSMART are collaborative in
nature and work to effectively achieve sustainable water management.
WaterSMART Grants, Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse, and the Water
Conservation Field Services Program, along with other Reclamation
activities, support the Department's Priority Goal for Water
Conservation. The Basin Studies component of WaterSMART supports the
Department's priority goal Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable,
Secure Supplies.
In the fiscal year 2017 Budget, the Administration proposes to fund
WaterSMART at $61.5 million. The WaterSMART components include:
WaterSMART Grants funded at $23.4 million; the Basin Study Program
funded at $5.2 million; the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse
Program funded at $21.5 million; Water Conservation Field Services
Program, funded at $4.2 million; the Cooperative Watershed Management
Program, funded at $1.8 million; the Drought Response program, funded
at $4.0 million; and the Resilient Infrastructure program, funded at
$1.5 million.
Rural Water Projects.--Congress specifically authorized Reclamation
to undertake the design and construction of six projects intended to
deliver potable water supplies to specific rural communities and Tribes
located primarily in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. The fiscal year 2017 Reclamation budget includes $38.1 million
for rural water projects; $18.6 million of that total is for operation
and maintenance of completed tribal systems, while the remaining $19.5
million is for continued construction for authorized projects.
Dam Safety Program.--A total of $86.1 million is provided for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams Program, which includes $64.5 million to
correct identified safety issues. Funding also includes $20.3 million
for safety evaluations of existing dams and $1.3 million to oversee the
Interior Department's Safety of Dams Program.
Site Security.--A total of $26.2 million is provided for Site
Security to ensure the safety and security of the public, Reclamation's
employees, and key facilities. This funding includes $4.1 million for
physical security upgrades at high risk critical assets and $22.1
million to continue all aspects of Bureau-wide security efforts,
including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel
security, information security, risk assessments and security-related
studies, and guards and patrols.
Powering Our Future.--The Budget includes $1.3 million to support
Reclamation's Sustainable Energy Strategy and actions identified
through the Sustainable Hydropower MOU with our partners at the
Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
funding will provide for increased hydropower development at existing
Reclamation facilities, and will allow Reclamation to work with Tribes
to assist them in developing renewable energy sources. These important
projects will assist in the production of cleaner, more efficient
energy and will support the Renewable Energy Resource Development
Priority Goal.
Strengthening Tribal Nations.--The fiscal year 2017 Reclamation
budget supports the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative through a
number of activities and projects. For example, the budget includes
$10.4 million for Reclamation's Native American Affairs Program in
support of Reclamation activities with Tribes, including technical
assistance, Indian Water Rights Settlement negotiations, implementation
of enacted settlements, and outreach to Tribes; and $15.7 million to
continue the operation and maintenance associated with the delivery of
up to 85,000 acre-feet of water to the Ak-Chin Indian Community in
Arizona. Ongoing authorized rural water projects also benefit both
tribal and non-tribal communities. Projects in the fiscal year 2017
Budget benefiting Tribes include the rural water component of the Pick-
Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Garrison Diversion Unit; Fort Peck
Reservation/Dry Prairie; and Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana; and
operation and maintenance funding only for tribal features of the Mni
Wiconi Project following completion of construction. Numerous other
projects and programs, such as the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
Program, Klamath Project, and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
Project also benefit Tribes. In fiscal year 2017, $106.2 million for
planning and construction of three recent Indian Water Rights
Settlements is being proposed in a new separate account as described
below.
River Restoration.--To meet Reclamation's mission goals of securing
America's energy resources and managing water in a sustainable manner
for the 21st century, our programs also focus on the protection and
restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by our
operations. Ecosystem restoration involves many activities, including
Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly
address the environmental aspects of the Reclamation mission. In fiscal
year 2017, a total of $135.5 million in the Budget for Reclamation
projects and programs directly supports the goals of the America's
Great Outdoors Program, through local and basin-wide collaboration in
watershed partnerships. Several of the programs are described below.
The Budget has $27.3 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery
Implementation programs within the Bureau of Reclamation, including
$19.9 million in the Great Plains Region to implement the Platte River
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation program. Within California's
Central Valley Project, $11.8 million is for the Trinity River
Restoration Program, with an additional $1.5 million from the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund.
Many other projects and programs also contribute to ecosystem
restoration including the Lower Colorado River Multi-species
Conservation Program, Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
Program, and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.
Research and Development.--Reclamation continues to promote
research and development to advance the science and technology that
supports best management of the country's natural resources and
heritage. In fiscal year 2017 the research and development (R&D) budget
totals $28.6 million, with $22.8 million for Science and Technology and
$5.8 million for the Desalination and Water Purification Research
Program. Scientific discovery, technological breakthroughs, and
innovation are the primary engines for expanding the frontiers of human
knowledge, which are vital for responding to the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century. Scientific and engineering
innovation promotes sustainable economic growth and job creation, moves
us toward a clean energy future, and helps us manage competing demands
on environmental resources.
Desalination and water purification research strives to produce new
clean water technologies, reduce costs, and decrease environmental
impacts while converting unusable waters into viable water supplies.
Reclamation's budget for these efforts also supports the
Administration's science and technology priorities, including
sponsorship of technology prize competitions, to spur innovative
breakthroughs and research related to climate adaptation and clean
energy.
In addition to the highlights just discussed, the fiscal year 2017
Water and Related Resources budget provides $110.8 million to operate,
manage, and improve California's Central Valley Project; this amount
reflects the shift of $36.0 million for a separate discretionary
account within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, as discussed
below. The next three accounts are also related to California water and
restoration.
san joaquin river restoration fund
Reclamation proposes $36.0 million of current funds for the San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund account in fiscal year 2017. The fiscal
year 2017 Budget funds activities consistent with the settlement of
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers as authorized by the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Act includes a provision
to establish the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund to implement the
provisions of the Settlement. The Settlement's two primary goals are to
restore and maintain fish populations, and restore and avoid adverse
impacts to water supplies. Under the Settlement, the legislation
provides for nearly $2.0 million in annual appropriations from the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for this purpose.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes a total of $55.6 million for
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF). This amount is
determined on the basis of a 3-year rolling average not to exceed $50.0
million per year and indexed to 1992 price levels. These expenditures
are offset by collections estimated at $55.6 million from mitigation
and restoration charges authorized by the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act.
california bay-delta restoration
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $36.0 million for California
Bay-Delta Restoration. The account focuses on the health of the Bay-
Delta ecosystem and improving water management and supplies. The Budget
will support the coequal goals of environmental restoration and
improved water supply reliability, under the following program
activities including: $2.2 million for a Renewed Federal State
Partnership, $5.3 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $28.5
million for Habitat Restoration. These program activities are based on
the Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta issued
December 22, 2009.
indian water rights settlements
In fiscal year 2017, Reclamation will enhance support of Tribal
nations. The fiscal year 2017 Budget proposes $106.2 million for Indian
Water Rights Settlements (IWRS), in a new account of the same name.
Reclamation is proposing establishment of an Indian Water Rights
Settlements account to assure continuity in the construction of the
authorized projects, and to highlight and enhance transparency in
handling these funds. This account is proposed to cover expenses
associated with Indian water rights settlements contained in the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291) and the Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project within Title X of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-11).
Of this amount, $6.4 million is for the Aamodt Settlement (Pueblos
of Nambe, Pojoaque, Tesuque and San Ildefonso in New Mexico); $12.8
million for the Crow Settlement (Crow Tribe in Montana); $87.0 million
for the Navajo-Gallup Settlement (Navajo Nation in New Mexico). These
settlements will provide permanent water supplies and offer economic
security for the Tribes and pueblos described above. The agreements
will build and improve reservation water systems, rehabilitate
irrigation projects, construct a regional multi-pueblo water system,
and codify water- sharing arrangements between Indian and neighboring
communities.
Per the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, in addition to the
discretionary funding included in this Budget, additional mandatory
funds have already been made available to Reclamation, in order to
realize the deadlines mandated in the settlement acts. The White
Mountain Apache Tribe activities will continue in fiscal year 2017
using mandatory funds.
policy and administration
The fiscal year 2017 Budget for Policy and Administration, the
account that finances Reclamation's central and regional management
functions is $59.0 million. The account supports activities necessary
for the management and administration of Reclamation that are not
chargeable directly to a specific project or program, such as corporate
oversight, policy and overall program management, budget preparation,
finance and procurement, and management of safety and health, human
resources, and information technology.
permanent appropriations
The total permanent appropriation of $106.8 million in fiscal year
2017 primarily includes $103.6 million for the Colorado River Dam Fund.
Revenues from the sale of Boulder Canyon power are placed in this fund
and are available without further appropriation to pay for operation
and maintenance of the project and other costs.
2016 through 2017 priority goals
Priority goals are a key element of the President's agenda for
building a high-performing government. The priority goals demonstrate
that our programs are a high value to the public and they reflect
achievement of key Departmental milestones. These goals focus attention
on initiatives for change that have significant performance outcomes,
which can be clearly evaluated, and are quantifiable and measurable in
a timely manner. Reclamation's participation in the Water Conservation
and Supply Enhancement, Renewable Energy Resource Development, Climate
Change Adaptation, and Engaging the Next Generation priority goals
helps to achieve these objectives.
Water Conservation and Supply Enhancement.--The fiscal year 2017
Budget will enable Reclamation to achieve water conservation capability
for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the
western United States by 1,040,000 acre-feet/year cumulatively (since
2009) through September 30, 2017. This will be accomplished through the
use of the WaterSMART Program to assist communities in stretching water
supplies while improving water management and increasing the efficient
use of water. By the end of fiscal year 2015, Reclamation had already
exceeded the prior goal of 975,000 acre-feet through partnerships with
States, Tribes, irrigation and water districts and other organizations
with water or power delivery authority.
Renewable Energy Resource Development.--The Budget also supports
efforts to increase approved capacity authorized for renewable energy
resources affecting Department of the Interior managed lands to at
least 16,600 Megawatts (since 2009) by September 30, 2017. Reclamation
contributes to the Departmental goal primarily through the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) on Hydropower with the Departments of Interior,
Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), signed March 24,
2010. The MOU encourages the development of sustainable hydropower at
Federal facilities in order to help meet the Nation's needs for
reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable hydropower by
prioritizing goals and coordinating hydropower research and development
efforts through studies and assessments. The Budget includes $1.3
million for Reclamation to implement an automated data collection and
archival system to aid in hydropower benchmarking, performance testing,
and strategic decisionmaking.
Climate Change Adaptation.--Consistent with the direction in the
President's 2013 Climate Action Plan, Reclamation is developing and
implementing approaches to understand, and effectively adapt to, the
risks and impacts of a changing environment on western water
management. Some examples include:
--The Basin Study Program takes a coordinated approach to assess
risks and impacts; develop landscape-level science; communicate
information and science to other entities and agencies; and
work closely with stakeholders to develop adaptation strategies
to cope with water supply and demand imbalances in a
collaborative manner.
--The Drought Response Program will implement a comprehensive new
approach to drought planning and will implement actions to help
communities manage drought and develop long-term resilience
strategies.
--Through the Resilient Infrastructure Program, Reclamation will
proactively maintain and improve existing infrastructure for
system reliability, safety, and efficiency for water
conservation to prepare for extremes and to support healthy and
resilient watersheds. Reclamation will continue to develop,
implement, and test an enhanced decisionmaking criteria
framework for selecting resilient infrastructure investments
and will identify opportunities to integrate operational
efficiencies more compatible with climate variability
adaptation goals, as part of the Bureau's ongoing
infrastructure investments.
--Reclamation's Science and Technology Program conducts water
resources research to improve capability for managing water
resources under multiple stressors, including a changing
climate. This research agenda will collaborate with and
leverage the capabilities of the Interior Climate Science
Centers.
Reclamation's WaterSMART Grants, Water Conservation Field Services,
and Title XVI Programs are enabling the West to better adapt to the
impacts of a changing environment by helping to conserve tens of
thousands of acre-feet of water each year in urban and rural settings,
on both large and small scales.
Engaging the Next Generation.--By September 30, 2017, the
Department of the Interior will provide 100,000 work and training
opportunities over four fiscal years, 2014 through 2017, for
individuals ages 15 to 35 to support the Department's mission. In
fiscal year 2017, Reclamation will continue to provide work and
training opportunities by leveraging funding through agreements with
21st Century Conservation Service Corps partners. Reclamation will
continue to use the Public Land Corps Act authority and the Youth
Conservation Corps Act to enter into partnership agreements. These
agreements will be used to assist on-the-ground projects and
internships involving youth in cooperative efforts in cultural and
natural resource conservation related to Reclamation projects. In
addition, a partnership agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation will help provide additional youth conservation employment
opportunities.
President's Build America Investment Initiative.--To help advance
the goals and priorities of the Department, a new Center for Natural
Resources Investment was recently launched by the Department as part of
the President's Build America Investment Initiative. Reclamation fully
supports this activity, as the new center will promote increased
private investment in water infrastructure and facilitate locally-led
water exchange agreements in the western United States to increase
resilience of water supplies and drive additional investment in
conservation technologies.
Appropriations/Authorization Language Proposals.--The
Administration is proposing two significant changes in authorizations,
for which language is included in the fiscal year 2017 Budget. The
first is to extend the California Federal Bay-Delta Authorization Act,
as amended, from 2017 through 2018, so the CALFED program can continue
its mission--even more important given the current drought. Language is
also included to increase the authorized appropriations ceiling of
Section 9504(e) of the Secure Water Act of 2009 from $350 million to
$400 million to provide the appropriations ceiling needed for much of
the funding for Reclamation's WaterSMART program, one of our most
effective programs.
conclusion
Importantly, the fiscal year 2017 Budget demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment to addressing the water and power demands of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This Budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on managing, operating, and maintaining its public
infrastructure and delivering water and power in an environmentally and
economically sound manner, in the interest of the American public.
Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, States, Tribes,
and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and support the mix of
water resource demands in fiscal year 2017 and beyond.
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Alexander. And Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of Interior,
is also here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Iseman
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with
you about the water related programs of the Department of the Interior,
and the President's 2017 Budget. My office oversees the Bureau of
Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey activities.
This is a strong budget that builds on our accomplishments. Our
request enables us to carry out our important missions--maintain our
core capabilities, meet commitments, and invest in key priorities. The
investments in this request show the Administration remains focused on
meeting the Nation's greatest challenges looking forward and ensuring
our economy works for all.
Our budget is part of the President's broader strategy to make
critical investments in domestic and national security priorities while
adhering to the bipartisan budget agreement signed into law last fall,
and lifts sequestration in future years to continue investment in the
future. This Budget recognizes the importance of the programs of
Reclamation and the USGS to the overall strength of the Nation's
economy, and its infrastructure. To put this into perspective, the U.S.
Department of the Interior Economic Report for fiscal year 2014 States,
Interior-managed lands and activities contributed about $360 billion in
national economic output, supporting an estimated two million jobs. Of
this, Reclamation's contribution, including recreation activities, was
$48.4 billion, supporting over 360,000 jobs.
At the same time, the Department of the Interior's 2017 proposed
investments lay the groundwork for promoting renewable energy
development, wise water utilization, managing the Nation's lands
responsibly, helping to protect communities in the face of climate
change, and investing in science to inform natural resource management.
This request addresses significant resource challenges for the Nation,
including water availability, particularly in the arid West, and makes
important investments in America's water infrastructure.
Interior's 2017 budget includes $1.0 billion for research and
development activities throughout the Department, an increase of $84.5
million from the 2016 enacted level. Activities supported include
scientific analysis of natural systems and applied field research to
address specific problems, such as thawing permafrost, invasive
species, and flooding. With multiple science programs across the
Department's bureaus and offices, science coordination remains a
critical component in the process of effective science application.
Interior is well served by the deployment of science advisors in each
bureau. These advisors serve critical roles within the organizations
and across the Department by sharing information application. The
Interior 2017 budget reflects high priority needs identified for
scientific research across the Department, which is the foundation for
the $28.6 million requested for research and development for
Reclamation. This request supports the Administration's efforts to
collaborate with non-Federal partners on advanced water treatment and
clean water technologies while conserving scarce Western water and
protecting species habitat.
the 2017 budget advances a record of achievement
This budget builds on a record of achievement across Interior's
diverse mission in general, as well as within Reclamation's specific
mission. To support the Powering Our Future Initiative, the 2017
Reclamation budget includes $1.3 million to implement an automated data
collection and archival system to aid in hydropower benchmarking,
performance testing, and strategic decisionmaking; investigate
Reclamation's capability to integrate large amounts of renewable
resources such as wind and solar into the electric grid; and work with
Tribes to assist in developing renewable energy sources. These
important projects will assist in the production of cleaner, more
efficient renewable energy.
In addition, the 2017 budget sustains President Obama's strong
commitment to tribal self- determination, strengthening tribal nations,
and investing in the future of Native youth, as illustrated by
Reclamation's continuing investment in endangered species recovery,
rural water, and water rights settlement programs. In fact, the
Department's overall budget continues to address Indian water rights
settlement commitments and programs to support Tribes in resolving
water rights claims, developing water sharing agreements, and
supporting sustainable water management.
Interior continues to engage in innovative efforts to leverage
youth engagement and partnerships to advance the Department's
extraordinary mission, and Reclamation is a contributor to this effort.
Bureau of Reclamation projects funded from 2010 through 2015
exceeded the cumulative water savings target of 910,000 acre-feet of
water/year, achieving savings of over 970,000 acre-feet, roughly the
amount of water needed for household use in Phoenix and the surrounding
area each year. The budget keeps Reclamation on track to conserve
1,040,000 acre-feet by the end of fiscal year 2017.
promotes the conservation and protection of america's natural and
cultural resources
America's public lands and waters offer space to get outside and
get active, and provide living classrooms with hands-on opportunities
to build skills. The Administration launched the Every Kid in a Park
Initiative to inspire the next generation to discover all America's
public lands and waters have to offer. Starting with the 2015-2016
school year, all fourth grade students and their families are able to
receive free admission to all national parks and other Federal lands
for a full year. Reclamation's mission goals of securing America's
energy resources and managing water in a sustainable manner for the
21st Century demands a focus on the protection and restoration of the
aquatic and riparian environments influenced by its operations.
Ecosystem restoration involves many activities, including Reclamation's
Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly address the
environmental aspects of Reclamation's mission. In 2017, a total of
$135.5 million in Reclamation's budget directly supports the goals of
America's Great Outdoors Initiatives, through local and basin-wide
collaboration in watershed partnerships. This supports efforts to
manage and promote the health and resilience of ecosystems on a
landscape scale, including a continued focus in priority landscapes
such as the California Bay-Delta.
implements the president's climate action plan
As manager of roughly 20 percent of the land area of the United
States and a partner with tribal, Federal, State, local, and
territorial government land managers, the Interior Department works to
address the challenges of natural hazards brought on by a changing
climate as an integral part of its mission. The budget includes funding
to improve the resilience of communities and ecosystems to changing
stressors, including flooding, severe storm events, and drought as part
of the Administration's effort to better understand and prepare for the
impacts of a changing climate.
Healthy communities require secure, sustainable water supplies.
This is particularly challenging with record drought conditions and
increasing demand taxing watersheds throughout the country, especially
in the arid West. To help increase the security and sustainability of
Western watersheds, the budget continues investment in the Department's
WaterSMART program to promote water reuse, recycling, and conservation,
in partnership with States, Tribes, and other partners. Funding is also
included for research, development, and challenge competitions to find
longer term solutions through new water technologies. The budget
invests in the Nation's water infrastructure to ensure millions of
customers receive the water and power that are the foundation of a
healthy economy.
improves oversight and use of federal dollars
Interior has several multi-year efforts underway to reduce its
nationwide facilities footprint, and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its information technology infrastructure and
financial reporting capabilities. Funding for these specific efforts is
included in the Department's budget request. Reclamation is
participating in these efficiency endeavors, as well as improving
reporting and increasing data quality and transparency, as envisioned
in the DATA Act. Reclamation is also implementing the Federal
Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, to improve
standardization of information technology investments by strengthening
the role of the Department's Chief Information Officer in strategic
planning, budget formulation and execution, and acquisition of
information management and technology activities.
natural resource investment center
The Department has established a Natural Resource Investment Center
to spur partnerships with the private sector to develop creative
financing opportunities that support economic development goals while
advancing the Department's resource stewardship mission.
The Center will use market-based tools and innovative public-
private collaborations to increase investment in water conservation and
critical water infrastructure, as well as promote investments that
conserve important habitat in a manner that advances efficient
permitting and meaningful landscape-level conservation. The Center will
work closely with the private sector and others to identify innovative
ideas and financing options for projects that conserve scarce Western
water resources and protect species habitat.
reclamation highlights
The 2017 budget for Reclamation and the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA) totals $1.1 billion and focuses on investments
in Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, healthy
watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies.
Funding for Water and Related Resources shows a reduction of $305.6
million from 2016, reflecting the shift of $106.2 million to the
requested new Indian Water Rights Settlements account and $36.0 million
for a separate discretionary account within the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
Reclamation requests establishment of an Indian Water Rights
Settlements account in 2017 to assure continuity in the construction of
the authorized projects and to highlight and enhance transparency in
handling these funds. The budget includes $12.8 million to implement
the Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act, $6.4 million for the Aamodt
Litigation Settlement Act, and $87.0 million for the Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project.
The extreme and prolonged drought facing the western States affects
major U.S. river basins in virtually every western State. The effects
of the current drought on California water, its agrarian economy, and
its communities are particularly acute. According to the Economic
Analysis of the 2015 Drought for California Agriculture by California
Department of Food and Agriculture, University of California-Davis and
California Department of Water Resources, the estimated cost of the
2015 drought on California agriculture-crop production, livestock, and
dairies is $2.7 billion with a total loss of 21,000 seasonal and part-
time jobs. The Colorado River Basin-- crucial for seven States and
several Tribes, in addition to two countries--is also enduring historic
drought. Nearly 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its
tributaries for some, if not all, of their municipal needs. The Basin
is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history; the period of
2000-2015 was the driest 16-year period in more than 100 years of
record keeping.
watersmart, water conservation field services and title xvi programs
Reclamation's WaterSMART program, requested at $61.5 million, is
helping to address the drought and other water supply issues across the
West. WaterSMART Grants, Water Conservation Field Services, and Title
XVI Programs, along with other Reclamation activities are enabling the
West to better adapt to the impacts of a changing environment by
helping to conserve tens of thousands of acre-feet of water each year
in urban and rural settings, and on both large and small scales. The
Drought Response Program will implement a comprehensive new approach to
drought planning and will implement actions to help communities manage
drought and develop long-term resilience strategies. Reclamation
continues to promote research and development through its Science and
Technology and Desalination and Water Purification Research Programs to
produce new clean water technologies, reduce costs, and decrease
environmental impacts while converting unusable water into viable water
supplies. The 2017 budget includes $8.5 million for an X-Prize
competition to encourage innovative water purification and treatment
technologies.
WaterSMART enables the USGS and Reclamation to make focused and
leveraged investments to address water resource challenges. The USGS
budget provides an increase of $18.4 million for science to support
sustainable water management, nearly doubling the investment made in
2016. As climate models forecast increasingly frequent and more intense
droughts, improving water management science is a paramount concern for
land and water management agencies, States, local governments, and
Tribes. The USGS budget would improve water use information and
research, provide grants to State water resource agencies, and create
hydrologic models and databases for better decision support. The USGS
budget also includes $3.9 million for drought science and $4.0 million
to develop methods to assess regional and national water use trends
during drought.
central utah project completion act
The Central Utah Project Completion Act, or CUPCA, Office is a
Department of the Interior program that reports directly to the Office
of Water and Science. The fiscal year 2017 Budget proposes $5.6
million, a reduction of $4.4 million from 2016 enacted, and includes
$1.3 million to be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission. The 2017 reduction in construction funding is
the result of difficult choices necessitated by the constrained fiscal
environment. The Budget provides funding through the CUPCA office to
continue the partnership with the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District in completing the Spanish Fork Canyon-Provo Reservoir Pipeline
(Northern Pipeline) of the Utah Lake System delivering 30,000 acre-feet
of water to Salt Lake County; required program oversight activities;
and endangered species recovery program implementation.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2017
budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and CUPCA. This budget is
responsible, and proposes to maintain core capabilities with targeted
investments to advance water conservation and the stewardship of water
resources. I thank you again for your continued support of our mission.
I look forward to answering questions about this budget. This concludes
my statement.
Senator Alexander. As I said, we are here today to review
the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and I am going to
focus my questions on three main areas. Number one, making
investments in our Nation's water infrastructure a priority. We
have made some real progress there in the last few years.
Properly maintaining our inland waterway system. We have also
made progress there. And deepening and widening our coastal
harbors. We have made progress there, and I would like to keep
making that progress.
Number one, in my opinion we should be spending more, not
less, on our Nation's water infrastructure. Last year, Congress
made record investments in our water infrastructure by
providing nearly $6 billion to the Corps of Engineers, the
largest amount of funding for the Corps in a regular
appropriations bill. Instead of building on that investment,
however, the President's budget request this year proposes to
cut funding for the Corps of Engineers to $4.620 billion, which
is $1.4 billion, or a 23 percent, cut below fiscal year 2016.
This is an enormous step backwards. In fact, if we simply
approve the President's request, the Corps of Engineers would
receive less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2006, setting us back more than a decade. And if we look at the
condition of the locks and dams that the Corps operates across
the country, for example, we should be able to see exactly why
these investments are needed.
The National Academy of Sciences in 2011 said that the
Corps has 138 locks in operation that are over 50 years old,
and that the average age of our locks is 58 years. These locks
are critically important to jobs. They ought to be among our
highest priorities in Federal spending and support. Using locks
is the only way for inland waterway shippers to move things
like grain, steel, fertilizer, and coal up and down rivers. And
having to unexpectedly shut them down for extended periods of
time could be catastrophic for agriculture and other
commodities that rely on them to get their goods to the market.
Yet as these facilities age, major upgrades, maintenance,
sometimes replacement is required, so I think it is fair to ask
why would the President cut funding for the Corps of Engineers
at a time when more investment is needed? I believe President
Obama should make funding our Nation's waterways a priority,
but this year's budget request certainly does not reflect that,
and I am going to ask our witnesses why that is the case.
PROPERLY FUNDING OUR INLAND WATERWAY SYSTEM
The President's budget request proposes significant cuts to
our 12,000-mile inland waterway system. Critical projects, such
as replacing Chickamauga Lock in Tennessee, have been piling up
for years due to a lack of funding, and many of us in Congress
have recognized that we needed to take steps to increase
funding for the Corps of Engineers to address this backlog.
First, Congress passed a law that reduced the amount of
money that comes from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to
replace Olmsted Lock, a project in Illinois and Kentucky that
was soaking up almost all the money that is available for
inland waterway projects. Second, Congress worked with the
commercial waterways industry to establish a priority list for
projects that needed to be funded on which Chickamauga ranks
near the top in fourth place.
And third, 2 years ago, working together in a bipartisan
way, we increased the user fee that commercial barge owners
asked to pay in order to provide more money to replace locks
and dams across the country, including Chickamauga Lock. These
user fees are deposited into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
These steps increased the amount of funding that was available
for inland waterway projects from about $85 million--at least
the amount of money from the trust funds that was available
from $85 million in 2014 to now $106 million this year.
Overall, these changes permitted us to spend over $400
million on our locks and inland waterways when they were
matched with funds from the General Treasury. Yet the
President's budget request only proposes to spend $34 million
instead of $106 million from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund,
leaving about 75 percent of the available funds unspent. That
means, in effect, that we would be collecting taxes from
commercial barges to go through the locks in order to improve
the locks, and then we would be keeping the money, putting it
in the bank, and not spending it for the intended--for the
intended reason.
The budget request also proposes to fund a single project,
Olmsted Lock, and eliminates funding for three other projects
that received funding last year, Monongahela Kentucky Locks and
Chickamauga Lock. Replacing Chickamauga Lock is important to
all of Tennessee, and if Chickamauga Lock closes, it will throw
150,000 more trucks onto I-75, yet the Administration continues
to not include it in the budget. I have worked with Secretary
Darcy and General Bostick, and I thank them for this, over the
past few years with the money that we have appropriated here in
the Congress. And I deeply appreciate the fact that we found a
way to restart construction on Chickamauga Lock, which has now
been funded for two consecutive years.
But this budget proposal is a huge step backwards in this
area, and I will be asking witnesses today why the
Administration has not proposed to spend all the funds that
have been collected, especially since commercial barge owners
asked Congress to increase user fees they pay to improve our
inland waterway infrastructure. We hear about unhappy Americans
today in this election season. I would think one reason they
would be unhappy if we raise their taxes at their request to
improve the locks, and then took the money and did not spend it
for the reason that we said we were raising the taxes.
DEEPENING AND WIDENING OUR COASTAL HARBORS
The budget request also fails to make critical investments
in our Nation's harbors. To maintain our economic
competitiveness, our harbors need to be able to accept the
larger ships that are expected to come through the Panama
Canal. Significant work and funding is necessary to deepen and
widen our coastal harbors to accommodate these bigger ships,
yet the Administration's budget proposes major cuts for this
program as well.
To ensure that these critical investments are made to our
harbors, Congress enacted spending targets for the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund in the 2014 Water Resources Reform and
Development Act. The target for fiscal year 2017 is about $1.18
billion, yet the Administration only proposes to spend $986
million, a shortfall of $194 million.
Now, we are talking about harbors that need work badly--
Mobile, Charleston, Savannah, New York, Jacksonville. These are
important to the future of our country. For 2 years, we have in
Congress done what we said we would do and matched our targets
for these critical investments. Yet the Administration would
knock us back by about $200 million this year. So I will ask
our witnesses how they plan to make these important upgrades to
our harbors without requesting sufficient resources to do it.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
I would also like to recognize our witnesses from the
Department of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of
Reclamation delivers water to one of five farmers in the West,
irrigating more than 10 million acres of some of the most
productive agricultural land in the country. We have a farmer
from the West on our committee. My guess is that he will
probably have some questions in this area. Although Reclamation
does not manage water resources in Tennessee, I know of its
deep importance to Senator Feinstein and other Senators on this
subcommittee, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
Now, Senator Feinstein is not here, and what I think we
will do is, Senator Tester, because of the votes today, what
we--have you voted already? So what we decided to do was to go
ahead and try to make the hearing a movable feast here, and
they are going to submit their questions for the record, and
Senators will have a chance to ask questions as they come in.
If Senator Feinstein arrives, she will make her opening
statement and ask her questions. If she does not before I
leave, then I will turn to you and let you--if I may do that,
and let you take questions.
INLAND WATERWAYS
Let me start with a few questions, and then I will go--then
I will go vote. Ms. Darcy, we worked well together to improve
funding for inland waterways, but this budget is a big
disappointment. Can you explain why the Corps' proposed budget
does not seem to reflect the President's statements that we
should be investing more in our Nation's infrastructure?
Ms. Darcy. Senator Alexander, given the fiscal realities
that we are facing, the President's overall budget for the Army
Civil Works Program is what is affordable at this time given
all the other competing requirements for the budget, including
even deficit reduction. So at this time, it is what is
affordable for us to be able to move forward with inland
waterways as well as others in the overall President's budget.
Senator Alexander. But we collected money from the
commercial users of the locks. I mean, it is one of those
unusual circumstances where the barge owners came and said
would you please raise our taxes and use those taxes to improve
the locks and the waterways. And so, we have done that, and you
cooperated with that last year very well, and that permitted us
to match the user fee money with appropriations and have more
than $400 million.
Yet this year if we take the President's budget, we would
only have about $225 million, and we would be leaving $72
million in taxes that we collected unspent. What should I say
to those commercial barge owners who paid extra taxes so we
would use it to improve the locks when we not use it?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, as you know, with any funding coming
out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which is collected from
the taxes, there has to be a match from the General Treasury
from our budget, a 50/50 match for everything within the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. In the 2017 budget, the President funded
Olmsted Lock and Dam at $33.5 million out of the Trust Fund,
because there was a change made in the law year before last
that the cost share for Olmsted would not be 50/50. It would be
15 percent from the Trust Fund and 85 percent from the General
Treasury.
In order to meet that match, the remaining money in the
Trust Fund could not be matched for the other projects. In
2017, we are funding Olmsted Lock's capability, and then in the
coming years, as you say, there is an unexpended balance in the
Trust Fund. I think it will be $106 million.
But over time, when we are buying down and completing
Olmsted, which we expect to have completed in 2018, we will be
able to free up other monies and match them with the Trust Fund
in the out-years for other projects on the capital strategies
list for inland waterways.
Senator Alexander. Let me stop my questioning just for a
moment. Senator Cochran, have you already voted?
Senator Cochran. Yes and no.
Senator Alexander. So you have to go over and vote?
We have got about three minutes left I think in the voting.
Would you like to make your opening statement before we go
vote?
Senator Cochran. I have to go vote.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Well then, why don't we do this.
Why don't you and I go vote, and then we will come back, and
then I will recognize you. And, Senator Tester, would you
assume control of the committee here?
Senator Tester. That is a dangerous thing.
Senator Alexander. I know, but I trust you.
Senator Tester. I will do it.
Senator Alexander. And when Senator Feinstein comes, if you
could hand over the gavel to her?
Senator Tester. I would be more than happy to do that. I
will hold the fort down while you are gone doing your job.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you all for
being here. I appreciate your work. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the flexibility.
RURAL WATER PROJECTS
I am going to be starting with you, Commissioner Lopez. I
believe we have got a half a dozen major rural water projects
that are in progress, that are being constructed. I think the
request this year is $19.5 million for construction on those
six projects. I think it is probably north of $1 and a half
billion if we are going to complete them all right now, and
that might be pretty conservative, quite frankly.
Montana has two of them that are pushing between $250 and
$300 million each, give or take a few million dollars, and the
request is for $19.5 million. Now in past years we plussed that
account up, I think $47 million last year and $31 million the
year before that. I guess I do not know how the Department is
doing its budget, but is it--are we coming in at such a low
number just assuming we are going to bump it up, and then you
can look fiscally conservative, and we do not look so fiscally
conservative? What is the thought process behind that, because
$19.5 million is not even close to keeping up with the rate of
inflation.
Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Senator, and thank you for your
question. My answer is very similar to Secretary Darcy's
earlier remarks, working within the fiscal constraints that we
are. Much of our infrastructure is quite old, 50 to 100 years
old. So the vast majority of our funds go towards the
continuing O&M and upkeep of that existing infrastructure. We
try and maximize the amount that remains for this construction
of new projects. Unfortunately, it is a very small remainder.
Senator Tester. Yeah, I would guess. And one of the
problems is that, you know, we are probably--I hope we plus
this up again. But if you came asking for a few more bucks, we
might be able to get more than just what we are going to plus
it up by, because, I mean, the need here is for $100 million,
not $19.5 million, and I think you agree with that. It could
easily be used when you get these water projects done, move
onto the next piece of infrastructure, and be done with it. Is
there a long-term plan as far as--or a short-term plan--I do
not care, either one--within the Agency to complete these
projects?
Mr. Lopez. Within the current budget constraints, we are
doing what we can. We do thank Congress for the plus up. It
certainly has helped us get moving along, but it has been
inadequate.
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is that as long as
we are under these budget constraints, they will continue to--
these projects will continue to flounder for dollars.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, unfortunately we have to maintain our
existing infrastructure and make sure that that continues to
function.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, there was a proposal out there
that my predecessor, Max Baucus, I believe, put forth about
taking a funding stream out of the Reclamation Fund. Is that
something that you think is appropriate? Is that something you
would support?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, obviously I would have to coordinate
with the Administration as to an Administration position.
However, I think your idea was the original intent of that
Reclamation Fund----
Senator Tester. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. To plow back into investment and
infrastructure. It seems like that would be a wise use of some
of that money.
Senator Tester. I will take that as an endorsement. Thank
you.
Mr. Lopez. I think it was.
IRRIGATION WATER
Senator Tester. Assistant Secretary Darcy, my guess is at
this point in time in your life, you would like to see the term
``intake dam'' go away. It has been--I am going to tell you
from my perspective it has been--I do not know if we would go
as far as calling it a nightmare, but it has not gone smoothly,
let us just put it that way. There is active litigation
currently on this project. I do not want you to get into those
details.
But could you comment on what you are doing to make sure
that the irrigators have access to irrigation water that they
would normally get from intake? I think it is about 52,000
acres.
Ms. Darcy. We are trying to maintain existing operations.
However, as you know, building the intake structure is
currently under litigation, and we are forbidden from going
forward with construction. But we have let a construction
contract, so we would be ready to go if and when the litigation
is resolved.
Senator Tester. So do you anticipate that litigation is
going to be solved by this month?
Ms. Darcy. I would not say this month, Senator.
Senator Tester. Oh, okay.
Ms. Darcy. I would like to say this fall.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, that is instructive. Here is
the problem. Are these folks going to have water this season? I
do not know what they are planning, but they could be putting
in the ground at the end of this month, like I say, depending
on what the crop is. It could be in April. It could be in May.
It could be in June. That is long before fall. Are they going
to have water this year?
Ms. Darcy. I would have to say I do not know.
Senator Tester. Whoa.
Ms. Darcy. General Bostick? I do not know.
Senator Tester. That is not the right answer.
Ms. Darcy. I know.
Senator Tester. Can somebody else shed some light on it?
General Bostick. A lot of our effort to move forward is
going to depend on the completion of the EIS, and that EIS is
not going to be completed until the fall. But once that is
completed, then we can move forward with the construction.
Senator Tester. I gotcha.
General Bostick. Beyond that, it would be difficult for us
to commit. I know the water is needed earlier than that, but it
would be difficult to do without the court ruling to move
forward.
Senator Tester. So by fall, just so you know, I mean, you
guys--I hope you know this. By fall, the growing season is
over. So is there anything we can do? Talk to me, please.
General Bostick. I think we can continue to work to
accelerate it as much as we can.
Senator Tester. So that you know, I do not know what crop
insurance does in cases like this for these guys. I do not know
if they can easily convert back to a dry land system. I doubt
it. I do not know if Mother Nature will smile upon them this
year so they will not need as much water. But we could--without
irrigation water, we really--I mean, these guys could be--
literally lose the farm. And I do not know their operations,
but I do know that if it was my operation and I was counting on
irrigated yield to pay my bills and I got dry land yield, it
would be very difficult to maintain that operation. So----
Mr. Lopez. Senator, if I may.
Senator Tester. Sure, go ahead.
Mr. Lopez. If I may address that just a little bit. We are
working with the Lower Yellowstone Board of Control to seek an
extension of a permit that would allow the continued rock
piling of that diversion weir to try and get water this season.
Obviously it is not certain that we will be totally successful,
but we are going to do everything that we can to make sure that
the farmers get some water.
Senator Tester. You know what. Thank you. I mean, that is
all I can ask for, you do everything you can do to make sure
those folks get their water, and they will get their water. I
appreciate that.
I feel bad not to--not having more questions for you
because I have got time, and usually this never happens, okay.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
I guess what I will say is that I appreciate what you are
doing, and I do appreciate the work everybody at this table and
their priorities for the fiscal year. I think the issue when it
comes to infrastructure is it is expensive, and it is needed.
You talked about 50 to 100, and probably east of Mississippi it
is 150 years old some of that water infrastructure. And it is
in dire need of rebuild or replace.
And in some cases in Montana it is in dire need of just
getting water in places that do not have water. It is
critically important if we are going to have any kind of
economy. And so, hopefully through your work, and if you
continue to lay out the case and be honest with Congress about
what the needs are and what your capacity is under the current
budget restraints, we will get enough votes in this outfit to
try to get some solid infrastructure improvements around this
country. It is something that my parents' generation got.
Unfortunately my generation does not, at least the ones that
serve here in Washington, DC.
So thank you for your work, whether it is in recreation, or
flood protection, or hydropower production, or irrigation for
agriculture, or drinking water. I certainly appreciate what you
do.
With that, I guess if I was in the military, I would say
``at ease, smoke them if you got them.'' But we are in a
building that you do not do that in, and I will wait for
Senator Feinstein's arrival, and we will go from there.
Okay. We will recess until the Chair, or Vice Chair, or a
member of this Committee shows, and then I can go vote. Thank
you all.
[Recess.]
Senator Alexander [presiding]. The committee hearing will
resume. Thanks to the witnesses. I understand we exhausted
Senator Tester.
He missed his opportunity of a lifetime, but he appreciated
the chance to question you. I will proceed with some of my
questions until another Senator arrives, particularly Senator
Feinstein, Senator Cochran I know, and we will talk a little
bit. And I will defer to them whenever they come or as other
Senators come. We have three more votes, but still we should be
able to give Senators an opportunity to have a good discussion.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
General Bostick, I want to go back Chickamauga Lock on
which I have worked with you before. I generally do appreciate
the work that you and Secretary Darcy have done in the past 2
years to restart Chickamauga Lock. I know you have looked at it
carefully. You have stayed within your--within the established
priorities within your Department. But you had sufficient funds
to spend $3 million in 2015 of unallocated money, and then this
past year the funding that Congress provided gave sufficient
funds to do what you needed to do with the first three
priorities on that priority list and left $29 million for work
on the fiscal year 2016 work plan for Chickamauga Lock.
I am perplexed about why the Corps would want to restart a
project and then not propose to fund it until it is finished.
So let me ask you this. How much funding could Chickamauga Lock
use during fiscal year 2017?
General Bostick. Senator, you are asking about the
capabilities, and I thought I would first talk about how we
look at the capability on a project.
Senator Alexander. That would be fine.
General Bostick. When we look at the civil works budget, it
is a performance-based budget as we look at our projects. We
look at each project based on what we can obligate each year,
and that would be what we call the capability. It is also
important to understand that when we look at capability, we
identify the capability for each project without regard to the
amount of money that we might have for the whole civil works
budget. So if you added the capability of every project, it
would obviously be more than the capability that we could
execute in a given year.
Given that, $37 million would be the capability of Chick
Lock in fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. So, well, thank you for such a precise
answer. So if you sufficiently funded the first three
priorities on your list, then the question would be whether you
had $37 million for Chickamauga Lock, which is fourth. Is that
also correct?
General Bostick. If we sufficiently funded the first three
projects, would we have----
Senator Alexander. No. I guess the way you would be looking
at it. Let us go back to this year. I think what you did this
year, you looked at the first three priorities on your capital
list and determined that you had a sufficient amount of money.
What would the capability be for each of those.
General Bostick. Correct.
Senator Alexander. You did that, and you had $29 million
left, and you spent that on Chickamauga Lock. Is that basically
right?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
General Bostick. The $29 million, correct. That was out of
the work plan.
Senator Alexander. So in the next year it would be--$37
million would be the amount you could spend if you had it
available.
General Bostick. $37 would be what we could obligate in
fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for your answer. I am now
going to call on Senator Feinstein for her opening statement. I
know that Senator Cochran, the committee's chairman is coming,
hoping to--he was here earlier, hoping to make a statement. And
we will continue until every Senator has a chance to do that,
and we will go back and forth to voting. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
first of all, let me give my apologies to you and to our
witnesses as well as to the people that were here. As you know,
I had an amendment on the floor and spoke on it, and at least
am pleased that it passed unanimously. So that is the good news
part of this.
I want to welcome our witnesses. I want to thank you for
your testimony today. And, General Bostick, I understand you
are retiring this year, so I want to extend my gratitude for
your service to this country. It is very much appreciated.
General Bostick. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. You have served with distinction within
the Army, both at home and abroad, and we are very proud of
you. So thank you. And you have done work on behalf of
California, which I thank you for.
Turning the President's 2017 budget request, Mr. Chairman,
I have to say I am disappointed in the proposals from both
agencies represented here today. A 23 percent drop in the
Corps' budget and a 13 percent drop in Reclamation's budget is
simply unacceptable when one considers all of the water
resource needs our Nation faces. The work your agencies do to
provide tangible benefits to more people on a daily basis than
perhaps anything else funded in our bill.
You are responsible for providing drinking water, water to
produce food. You are tasked with protecting lives, homes,
businesses from floods. You maintain navigation channels and
ports. You restore the ecosystem to help combat climate change.
So it is disappointing that every year we go through the same
exercise of examining an Army Corps budget that has been cut by
over $1 billion from the previous year's enactment level, and
that is not your doing. It is the executive branch's doing.
It seems to me your job is already difficult enough, and I
am not pleased to have to play these games with the
Administration for yet another year. So I hope we can come to
some agreement on numbers that allow you to do the job well.
I am equally disappointed with Reclamation's proposed
budget, which is a 13 percent decrease from fiscal year 2016.
The subcommittee has undertaken herculean efforts to provide
$150 million more than was requested over the last 2 years to
address the drought facing the West. And so, once again the
Administration did not propose to continue that funding. That
is $150 million that we put in that they did not continue, and
indeed did not request any additional funding for the drought.
That, as a Californian, is really unacceptable.
My constituents are also the President's constituents, and
I am really frustrated that the Administration seems unwilling
to help me do something about this drought. One El Nino year
alone will not be enough to end this drought, and Californians
are really hurting. It should matter.
It is a huge State, 40-plus million people. Sixty-nine
communities in our State have significant water supplies and
water quality issues. Our economy lost $42.7 billion from the
drought last year. One million acres of California farmland was
fallowed in 2015. The drought has led to 35,000 permanent jobs
lost. Land subsidence from pumping too much groundwater has
caused large areas of the San Joaquin Valley to sink by as much
as two inches per month. As a result, bridges, aqueducts, and
roads have already begun to crack.
Fifty million large trees are dead or likely will die.
Another--and get this number--888 million trees experienced
loss of canopy cover since 2011. And I said to my staff,
Commissioner, this cannot be right, and they said, oh, yes, we
have checked it, it is.
There are two themes I want to highlight today. The first
is data versus intuition, and the second is win-win scenarios.
Commissioner Lopez, this subcommittee has provided the Bureau
with extraordinary resources over the past 2 years to provide
more water to people in the West. Yet I continue to hear that
water pumping decisions are still being based on intuition of
when protected fish might be near the pumps rather than when we
know they are actually present.
For example, Interior may reduce pumping if even one smelt
this size is found as far away as 17 miles from the pumps near
a monitoring station called Prisoner's Point. But outside,
biologists and scientists believe that Reclamation is reducing
pumping prematurely. These experts believe that the Agencies
could continue with higher pumping levels, even if smelt are
found at a monitoring station that is only 12 miles from the
pumps. Why? Because they can still move back.
So we need to know who is right, and that is why I believe,
and what we have proposed, is daily boat monitoring in turbid
waters because that water is critical to making an informed
decision and increasing the Agencies' operational flexibility.
Reclamation has been given significant funds to make more data
driven decisions grounded in the latest science, and so I hope
you will do so.
Secretary Darcy, while water supply is not your primary
mission, I believe that water supply can be achieved also
during the course of the Corps' traditional work on flood
protection, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. I believe
there are numerous opportunities for the Corps to find these
win-win scenarios, and you have done a good job, and I just
want to encourage you to look for doing that.
For example, seismic retrofits could be coupled with dam
raises, and we have that in one proposal of such in the San
Joaquin Valley. Better weather forecasting resulting in less
water being unnecessarily released from damns. I met with the
Army Corps head from Sacramento yesterday about Folsom Dam.
Folsom Dam is just 60 percent filled, and yet they are
releasing water because of the possibility of rain, which could
possibly produce flooding.
Now, I do not know if 60 percent is the right level to
begin that--to do that or not, but I really think in view of
the drought we ought to take a look at that. And ecosystem
restoration projects can provide for additional groundwater
recharge as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me say one thing. We have worked well
together, and I have so appreciated your leadership over these
many years. But this drought is the hardest thing I have ever
done in my 23 years in the Senate. And I really want to make
sure that the two agencies testifying today are working hand-
in-hand with each other, with other Federal agencies, and with
State and local partners. We are the most populous State in the
Union, a significant source of our Nation's food, at least 50
percent. That means that drought is a problem for the whole
Government and will require a whole of Government solution.
So, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying today is I look forward
to working with you. You have always been a great one to work
with, and I really appreciate it. And I hope that we will be
able to reallocate some funds to solve some of these big
problems. So thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. We have
had an excellent working relationship on this committee and
with the witnesses. For the information of Senators, what we
decided to do today, we dispensed with their testimony. That
has been submitted to the record. We dispensed with opening
statements except for the chair and the ranking member. And
because of the votes we are giving Senators an opportunity to
take their five minutes in terms of questions or statements in
order.
And so, Senator Feinstein, if I may suggest, I am going to
ask you to chair for the next few minutes, and I will go take
the--I will vote early on vote three, and then I can get back
here I think in time for you to go.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Senator Alexander. And after you are through, if Senator
Cochran comes back, he would be next. And if he is not, Senator
Murkowski would.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Senator Alexander. So if you could please do your questions
and then go to the next Republican member, I will be back by
that time.
WATER PUMPING DECISIONS
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
My main question is on delta operations, and I am concerned
that Reclamation has pumped less water in 2016 during this El
Nino year than it did in 2015 when California was in extreme
drought. Flows were as high as 50,000 CFS in the Sacramento
River, yet the Agencies reduced pumping to the low end of the
biological opinions because of one smelt.
I continue to hear that water pumping decisions are still
being based on when protected fish might be near the pumps
rather than when we know they actually are present. For
example, Interior may reduce pumping even if one smelt is found
as far as 17 miles away, as I have said, at Prisoner's Point.
And I mentioned what outside biologists and scientists believe.
I will not go into that again.
So here is the question. What are you doing to test whether
or not smelt identified past the Prisoner's Point monitoring
station can still survive and make their way back out to the
central delta.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, first of all, let me start by saying
that I understand your frustration and that of the water users.
We are equally frustrated. Having said that, I need to answer
this by talking a little bit about what I understand the fish
agencies are relying on.
And basically what they are concerned about is that once
fish get to that point, Prisoner's Point and south of there,
they are essentially entrained in the system. If they get into
that area, they are not going to survive, nor are they going to
spawn.
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. As long as we concur that
Prisoner's Point is 17 miles from the pumps, right? That is
all.
Mr. Lopez. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. Please continue.
Mr. Lopez. So we operate the pumps under the biological
opinions, and the Fish and Wildlife Service regulate the
conditions of the biological opinion of the smelt. They have a
Smelt Working Group that is, in essence, the best minds on the
issues of the smelt and its survivability.
They are of the opinion that once smelt get to that point
around Prisoner's Point and points south, if the flow into the
Old and Middle River is reversed, the smelt essentially moves
on towards the pumps, they become entrained there, and they
will not survive. So they are concerned about smelt even at a
very long distance away from the pumps.
In fact, what has happened in recent timeframes of high
flows, as you have mentioned, the Smelt Working Group has
recommended even lower pumping rates than what we have done.
But David Murillo, our regional director of the Mid-Pacific,
whom you know well, he and the fish agencies have a very good
working relationship. They have agreed to essentially try
something that is beyond what has been recommended, and that is
what they have been doing.
One of the reasons that they are trying to prevent the
entrainment is that we had an instance in the winter of 2012-
2013 where the smelt did get entrained in that area. Once they
got entrained, they got pulled into the pumps and we reached
the take limit, and at that point we had to re-consult, and
then we were even further constrained on pumping.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this question. Would you
be willing to sit down with those biologists and agencies that
believe that in the distance from 17 miles away and 12 miles
away that those fish can still return, that they will not be
entrained, would you at least sit down with them and listen?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, absolutely, I would.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I will set it up.
Mr. Lopez. However, I also want to mention that the entity
that has to be convinced is the Fish and Wildlife Service and
their biologists. They, in essence, regulate what we do.
Senator Feinstein. We will include them, too.
Mr. Lopez. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. But, look, I do not intend to quit, so I
am going to be at this, and there are so many conflicting
opinions. Maybe if we get them in one room and listen to them,
it might be profitable. So I very much appreciate that.
Senator Murkowski, welcome. You have a heavy load today I
know.
KING COVE
Senator Murkowski. We are all busy, and I apologize. We are
all kind of jumping up and down like jack-in-the-boxes here to
go vote because this is so important. I have what I hope will
be three very quick questions.
The first one is relating to King Cove. Senator Feinstein
indicates she is not giving up. I am not ever giving up on King
Cove and getting my 10-mile--the people of King Cove a 10-mile,
one-lane gravel non-commercial use road.
I am told, because I had the Secretary of Interior before
me today in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and last week
in Energy, that the study that she asked the Corps to do about
alternatives for King Cove was done by the Corps. When I asked
her if she could make that public, she said she did not know if
she could. She was going to have to check with the Corps. And I
said, well, conveniently, I have got the Corps in front of me
this afternoon, so I will ask if we will be able to get a copy
of that report that was requested by the Secretary.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I am----
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. Ms. Darcy, if you could wait.
I will go down and vote, and you just continue on. Is that
agreeable, Senator?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, in response to your question, we did a
report at the request at the Department of Interior for the
non-road alternatives. And I will personally ask the Secretary
of the Interior if we can make it public.
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that. I think the
people of King Cove would appreciate that, so I will look
forward to that.
ARCTIC DEEP PORT STUDY
Let me ask you about the Port of Nome, and more
specifically to a deepwater port in the Arctic. As you know, I
have been a long proponent of making sure that we have
infrastructure in the Arctic as we see developments taking
place up north, and the increased traffic in the Bering, the
Beaufort, and the Chukchi.
Last year, the Corps placed a strategic pause on the
proposed port in Nome. When the President was up in September,
he announced the need for a deepwater port that would be north
of Dutch Harbor. Given the President's support for this, why
have we not included construction funding going forward in this
next fiscal year?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the Arctic deep port study that you are
referencing was indeed put on pause last October in conjunction
with the local sponsor, the State of Alaska. Since that time
and since the President's visit, we are now going to look at
further scoping of that study, because it was limited to just
some economics involving oil and gas. But there are other
things that we think can be included in this, for instance,
that the Port of Nome may be considered a port of national
significance, in addition to the fact that it could possibly
house the Coast Guard's icebreaker in the future, as well as
other benefits that could come from that.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate the additional scoping, and
I think that it is important that--life safety reasons. Like
the socioeconomic benefit that accrues to a community, to a
region when you have a port that is accessible that can reduce
the cost of goods that come in, reduce the cost of fuel that
comes in, just the general cost of living.
But I do find it just really quite surprising that the
assessment for a port could have been built upon one project
without recognition of, again, the expanded role, the
activities in the region. This is one of those areas where when
you talk to the people, whether they are in Nome or anywhere
south of that, they say the Arctic is more than just oil and
gas exploration.
It is just more than just shale up north. It is about
having infrastructure to accommodate a reality, a daunting
reality that--it is almost as if a new ocean has been
discovered at the top of the globe. And so, how are we
preparing for that? You cannot really be in the game, you
cannot be that Arctic participant unless we have that system of
ports. So know that we are going to continue to press on this.
SECTION 107 SMALL NAVIGATION PROGRAM
The last thing that I wanted to ask you, and I actually
have constituents that are waiting to see me from the community
of St. George on the Pribilof Islands. I had asked about the
Section 107 Small Navigation Program last year. Many of my
constituents have thanked me for advocating on behalf of that
program because it really is a great fit, a great fit for these
small villages, these small communities that are trying to
construct a small harbor, break water. But the waiting between
WRRDA (Water Resources Reform and Development Act) bills has
been a little bit lengthy, and just these are projects, as you
and I know, just compete on that national scale.
And what I would ask from you is just further commitment
from you, from your staff to continue to work with my office so
this Section 107 Program can continue to benefit these small
communities. I know for a fact that the people of St. George
that are waiting for me as I go to this next vote are going to
want to know that this type of support is going to continue.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, the CAP programs are an important part of
our entire program, and we have three 107 projects now ongoing
in Alaska. And that program is one that it is for smaller
projects that do not need the full-blown WRDA authorization,
and that is why it has been successful, especially in small
communities like those in Alaska.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will work with you on that. And
since nobody is back, I will take an opportunity. I was in
Houston last week at CERAWeek, which is the big oil and gas
summit really in the country. And a lot of discussion about the
fact that we had just seen that Wednesday the first shipment of
LNG leaving Louisiana to head out to Brazil. Obviously exports
of LNG (liquefied natural gas) are a big deal for me both
because of the Alaska LNG project and because of the energy
bill that we are working on that would expedite these
approvals.
SABRINE-NECHES WATERWAY
The Sabine-Neches Waterway is probably one of the more
important waterways in the Nation. By all accounts it is poised
to play a key role in the buildout of LNG exports from the
United States, specifically Louisiana and Texas. So if you
could just give us a quick update on the 2014 authorization
that we need to deepen that waterway.
Ms. Darcy. You are talking about Sabine-Neches?
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. That project currently has a benefit to cost
ratio that does not compete well for budgeting at a 7 percent
rate. However, our Galveston district is doing and economic
update and that economic update I think will be approved in the
third quarter of this year. So with an uptick in the economics,
there is a possibility that the benefit-to-cost ratio would be
improved and make it more competitive for budgeting.
Senator Murkowski. Do you anticipate that that would, given
what we expect to see coming out of Louisiana and coming out of
Texas with LNG exports?
Ms. Darcy. I think in considering those, since the 4-year
ban has been lifted and that can happen now, that will change
the economics.
Senator Murkowski. And that will be included as part of
your analysis.
Ms. Darcy. It will be considered in it, yes.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I appreciate that. I am going to
utilize a little bit of executive authority and call a recess
for the committee until other members get back so that I do not
miss this important vote. So we are recessed to the call of the
chair.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Thank you for your
flexibility. The hearing will come to order. That was the last
vote, so Senators will be here, and Senator Coons was here
earlier, so I will call on Senator Coons at this point for his
five minutes of statements and questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander.
Thank you both for your forbearance and for your sound and
solid leadership of this subcommittee and others. Thank you for
your service and for the opportunity to talk with you today
about the Army Corps of Engineers.
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGING
I have been particularly pleased with the service of the
colonel who is charged with the Philadelphia district,
Lieutenant Colonel Mike Bliss. And I am grateful for your
continued support for a project that is near and dear to my
constituents, the Delaware River dredging. I am pleased there
is another $55 million overall in the work plan to complete the
project, so I just want to start by saying thank you since I
know not every opportunity is taken to thank you for budget
support and for leadership.
DELAWARE BEACH PROTECTION
If I might, Assistant Secretary Darcy, I just want to talk
about Delaware's beaches. We have several world-class beaches.
They are a key driver of tourism in our region, and they are
essential to the economy of southern Delaware. We had a
significant storm recently that imposed some very hard damage.
We were grateful for previous investment in beach nourishment
that protected those beaches, but most of what had been
provided in recent years was torn away. That has left a lot of
our coastal communities and their infrastructure exposed. I am
hopeful that we can work together to find resources.
The President's budget, to my disappointment, did not
include funding for Bethany Beach or South Bethany Beach, and
as the project information reports from the Philadelphia
district come into your office describing damage to Delaware's
beaches, I am hopeful that you conclude that the Flood Control
and Coastal Emergencies Act Funds that remain unspent from
Sandy could be used for Rehoboth, Bethany, and South Bethany.
Do you think that is possible or likely, and if not, what
else do you think we could do to rebuild Delaware's beaches and
its coastal defenses?
Ms. Darcy. As you say, Senator, we are in the PIR stage
which will inform as to what damages were done and what the
actual cost of those repairs will be.
As far as using Sandy supplemental funds, I am going to
have to defer because I believe that those can only be used for
damages that were incurred from Super Storm Sandy as opposed to
subsequent storms. That is something we will check into if the
need for the repairs is unmet.
Senator Coons. Given just a visual inspection as well as
detailed reports from local government leaders suggest to
Delaware's congressional delegation that there will be some
significant needs here, what funding source do you think is
most likely relevant or appropriate to take action this year?
Ms. Darcy. Probably the FCCE account. That is our Flood and
Coastal Emergencies account, but it would depend on how they
are evaluated as far as relative to the most recent storm.
Senator Coons. I will join comments made by other of my
colleagues earlier in this hearing that it is disappointing
that the Administration's funding request is insufficient for
what are the likely needs of the whole country. As a member of
this subcommittee, I am happy to commit to continuing to
support needed increased funding that will make it possible for
you to address the needs of Delaware and many other States.
PORT OF WILMINGTON
Let me also turn to the Port of Wilmington. It is on a
dredging cycle that really is not sufficient to meet the needs
of this port. It is a relatively small port, but it is an
important port for my home State. It silts in about every 6 to
9 months, and right now it is causing havoc with the number of
customers at the port. I am hopeful that going forward you will
consider including funding for two dredging cycles a year. Is
this something you are familiar with?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I am aware that we did provide 2016 O&M
dredging for this port at $3.845 million, and also in the
President's 2017 budget request we have $4.355 million for the
next dredging cycle. So I think an additional dredging cycle is
what your question is, sir?
Senator Coons. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. I believe that currently we are budgeting on a
single dredging cycle, and that is what I think those numbers
reflect.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
Senator Coons. Well, I will urge you to reconsider, based
on experience at the port, two dredging cycles a year. Let me
in my closing moments simply recommend to you again funding for
the Delaware River Basin Commission. Although there is a
congressionally approved compact that requires a Federal
contribution, the Federal contribution has been forthcoming, I
think, in 19 of the last 20 fiscal years.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
I also am an advocate for the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. You have made some significant, I think, improvements.
The request is higher. Our funding has improved, but it is
still 20 percent less this year than what was appropriated
last. I think it would make a significant different for harbors
across the country, not just in my home State of Delaware.
So please note me as an advocate for working to ensure that
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is put to its appropriate
purposes, and that we invest to the level we need to in order
to ensure that our export and import businesses that go through
our vital ports and harbors are appropriately maintained.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall, I think we have other
Republican members coming, but since you are here, I will call
on you. And what we have done is because of the votes, we have
asked the witnesses to put their statements in the record,
Senators have put their opening statements in the record, and
now you have five minutes for statements or questions, whatever
you would like. Senator Udall.
NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER PROJECTS
Senator Udall. Senator Alexander, Chairman Alexander, thank
you very much. And I guess I lucked out with not having to
alternate here.
I want to thank you both for working with the Albuquerque
District to fund some important New Mexico projects over the
last few years. New Mexico often has a tough time in the
President's budget request, so additional discretionary funds
that this committee provides and your hard work is really
critical in my State.
We have had some good success funding flood control
projects in Alamogordo, Socorro, the Southwest Valley, and
others, and I am very relieved that we have continued the New
Mexico Acacias Program. I hope you know what that is, Honorable
Jo-Ellen Darcy.
Ms. Darcy. I visited about 4 years ago.
Senator Udall. Good. Good. And to support the historic--
these are various, you know, historic irrigation canals that
also help our local ecosystems and manage water flows.
Additionally, I am pleased that for 2016, the Corps has
funded the Rio Grande Environmental Management Program for the
first time. It will be important to continue that effort which
will link together stakeholders and watershed information to
encourage collaboration on water challenges and minimize the
potential for counterproductive conflicts. And finally, I am
glad we are making progress on reimbursements under the
Environmental Management Accounts, specifically for Rio Rancho
in 2016. We talked about this issue last year, and I wanted to
thank you for your attention to this issue.
The Corps signed agreements years ago with a variety of New
Mexico communities to fund water projects, and we need to close
these accounts out. So given our recent success--hopefully this
is an easy question--will you continue to work with this
committee and stakeholders in New Mexico to advance these kinds
of projects in a fiscally responsible way if this committee
continues to provide additional discretionary funding for the
Corps?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator.
GILA RIVER DIVERSION PROJECT
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. And now turning to the
commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation Estevan. Good, solid New
Mexican is back here. Good to see you again.
Commissioner Lopez, I want to touch on an issue that is
very important to me and one I know you are familiar with, the
proposed Gila River diversion project. The Gila River is the
crown jewel of the Southwest and one of the last remaining
free-flowing rivers in the United States. The river provides
amazing opportunities for recreation, wildlife habitat
protection, and has unique historic value. And, of course, we
are also very sympathetic to the water needs of nearby
communities and the agricultural needs.
I understand why any proposal that could mean more water
resources is a discussion worth having, but from everything I
have seen, this project simply does not add up. My
understanding is that a diversion has the potential for about
14,000-acre feet of water, but with significant technical
challenges, and only in a wet year that will not happen very
often, with construction costs estimated near a billion dollars
and would need NEPA approval for disturbing a relatively
untouched river system. In short, this does not seem like a
viable or wise project.
I understand that the environmental review process is the
next step, and the Bureau of Reclamation along with the New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission are joint leads on this.
What kinds of analyses will be included in your comprehensive
review process? Will the costs associated with this project be
fully reviewed in an objective way, because I have said, and
please go ahead with those, Estevan, and then I will just
finish with these last couple of questions.
Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Senator. It is good to see you.
Senator Udall. It is a pleasure. Great to see you.
Mr. Lopez. And so, to date New Mexico has yet--the New
Mexico Unit entity has yet--to propose a project, so we have
not yet begun that process. Once they do, it will be a few
months before we begin a public scoping process. We would
develop a full range of alternatives that would be evaluated in
that process, and we would assure that there is a robust
analysis that would comport to the Federal principles,
requirements, and guidelines for water and land related
resource implementation studies. That was part of the agreement
that was entered into last November.
Specifically, you asked what type of studies would be
looked at. We would intend to look at the impacts on fish and
wildlife, hydrology, land use, cultural resources, recreation,
and ecosystems, and, by all means, the economics of any
proposal that comes forth. We are committed to a robust
evaluation of this. As you say, the Gila is truly a jewel in
the Southwest, and it is something that needs to be protected.
Senator Udall. Thank you. And, Senator Alexander, I will
submit the rest of my questions to Mr. Lopez for the record.
But I just want to say that I have seen estimates that range
from half a billion to $1 billion for construction. I cannot
see any White House Office of Management and Budget clearing a
new billion-dollar Federal water supply project with such
limited potential. So thank you, and I will submit additional
questions, and look forward to your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Lankford.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISPOSITION STUDIES
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
for being here and for the work that goes into this. General
Bostick, good to see you again. Let me pepper you with
questions. It is so good to see you. How about that?
We have talked a couple of times before about the 2014
water bill that put into it a request to the Corps to say give
us an inventory that is not needed--this was the quote--``not
needed for the mission of the Corps of Engineers.'' Obviously
it is trying to determine if there may be any properties or
entities that are anywhere within the Corps of Engineers that
are not needed so that we can spend money on what is essential
for the Corps.
How is that study, that assessment going, and when can we
expect to have that report?
General Bostick. It is good to see you again, Senator.
There are a number of activities going that I think are related
that I wanted to highlight and talk about. And the first is the
deauthorization report that we had to come back to Congress
with, $18 billion worth of deauthorizations.
Senator Lankford. If my memory serves me correctly, about
$14 billion in that $18 billion request.
General Bostick. We were able to come up with $14 billion,
but in coming with that, we had to do an assessment of many of
our projects, so the assessment is underway. We are not
complete. We still have a lot of work to do. It is not directly
tied to the 6002 report, but it is related. The other thing
that----
Senator Lankford. So give me a ballpark on timing when that
assessment might be complete.
General Bostick. I cannot give you a ballpark time on that.
What we are trying to do, because we have not started the 6002
report because we have put all of our focus on trying to get
the deauthorization report accomplished. We did that, and now
we are doing the annual deauthorization, and we will be
finished with that in September of 2016.
I think combining the two efforts, we will be closer to
doing an overall assessment. What we have done is completed an
overall operational assessment of our projects, but we have not
made an assessment of which ones we should retain, which ones
we should divest ourselves of, and which ones should be
repurposed. That is going to be a longer effort.
Senator Lankford. Sure. Well, that is why we started it
early because you know my next question on that is the disposal
process, and once we determine some of the things that might.
And I say ``might'' because we are not asking you to choose
those, but at least to start to put together a list of things
that are not central to the mission of the Corps. Once we have
that list, we have got to work through the process of how do we
actually dispose of that.
Any ideas at this point on disposal authorities that the
Corps may need once that list is out there?
General Bostick. Well, you do have authorities under
Section 216, and rather than waiting until we have the complete
report finished, we are starting now with disposition on two
projects, disposition studies on the Kentucky River Lock and
Dam and the West Pearl Navigation Project. So those disposition
studies will go on this year.
Many activities are working in parallel. We are not going
to wait until the complete report is done, but we are using the
deauthorization requirement, both the annual and the one time
report required in WRRDA, and also moving forward with 216
authorities.
Senator Lankford. Okay. That will be one of those things we
will want to talk about at length is if there are additional
authorities or ways we can help in that process. Obviously if
we have an area where we are not authorizing or allowing or
transferring, we do not want it to be more expensive than
actually maintaining it. We want to actually have an efficiency
of the process with this so you all do not have to worry about
that.
ACCEPTING NON-FEDERAL FUNDING DURING EMERGENCIES
Let me ask about another question that came up from the
2014 WRRDA, and that is accepting materials and services from
non-Federal entities in the case of an emergency situation.
Obviously this has implications around the country, especially
in inland waterways and places where we may have an emergency
situation.
Congress passed that, and asking for a set of--asking for
implementation. We were pretty clear to give that authority. I
am trying to figure out if the Corps has the implementation on
that, the guidelines for that done at this point. Are those
guidelines complete?
General Bostick. Yes, we are finalizing initial
Implementation Guidance on that. I think where we are finding
challenges at the local level is we can accept funds on an
emergency disaster type situation, but we cannot accept funds
for some of our projects where we have not been able to
maintain them.
Senator Lankford. So what about--this is an emergency
situation just starting with that. What about services? You
accept services. So if someone had materials, had equipment,
had personnel, a contractor that was there, and a State or a
private entity said this is an emergency, we want to be able to
help with that. Are you all in a position now with these
guidances to be able to accept those goods or services in the
time of an emergency?
General Bostick. If it is related to a disaster, my answer
would be yes.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Yeah, all these are contingent on
an emergency. That was the definition that was on it, which is
left open of what is an emergency. When I talked to several of
the folks in the different areas, there seems to be a hesitancy
in the field and in the regional offices to accept goods or
services or be able to discuss that even of what the process
would be in case of an emergency.
Those folks want to plan contingencies, and what I hear is,
well, we are studying it. There are not those guidelines in
place in the field. So I do not know if those guidelines had
just been released or not, but the individuals that this would
actually affect cannot plan their contingencies because they do
not know how to connect to the Corps at this point in case of
an emergency.
General Bostick. We will go back and redouble our efforts
to make sure that the Implementation Guidance that we will put
out is understood in terms of what they can and cannot accept.
Senator Lankford. Okay. If there are additional authorities
that are needed on that, we just need to know because if this
is going to be an issue of, yes, we technically can, Congress
gave us permission, but there are liability risks, and who is
going to pay for what if it breaks. And suddenly we are in a
position where there is actually not done what Congress said we
could do, and there is some gap in it, we need to know in that
process so we can actually resolve this. So can you help us
with that?
General Bostick. We will follow up.
Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Hoeven.
RED RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
begin by thanking Secretary Darcy, also General Bostick, and I
see that you brought Colonel Price with you as well. Thank you
for your help and your commitment to move forward with
permanent flood protection both in the Minot region as well as
in the Fargo/Moorhead region in the Red River Valley. It is
much appreciated and very important for both regions, so I
would like to thank all of you. I would also like to thank the
chairman of this committee. I appreciate it very much.
My first question would be to Secretary Darcy and also to
General Bostick. And that is in terms of moving forward with
the Red River permanent flood protection, if you would please
describe for me how you anticipate approaching the Minnesota
DNR process.
Ms. Darcy. In the 2016 work plan when we funded this
project for $5 million, there was a provision that said that in
order to work through the current issues with the DNR, that we
would need to have all of those issues addressed before May of
this year when the Environmental Impact Statement is due. And
then I would need to make a determination as to whether those
conditions were met by July of this year in order for us to be
able to execute a Project Partnership Agreement by August 30th
of this year.
Senator Hoeven. And I would ask both you, Secretary Darcy,
and General Bostick to address, your thoughts on the DNR
process, but then also how you are going about addressing
upstream concerns as well in regard to the project.
General Bostick. I do not have anything else to add beyond
what Secretary Darcy talked about on the DNR.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. And then both of you, just your
thoughts on, again, working to bring everybody together and
advancing the project, but also working with upstream
interests.
Ms. Darcy. Because this is a two-State project, we always
have to consider the upstream impacts as well as the
downstream. In this particular situation, given the alternative
financing arrangements, we need to be able to work with the
upstream interests in order to be able to go forward with both
the upstream portion as well as the downstream portion because
the downstream portion is the Federal part of the project, and
the upper portion is what the local sponsor as well as their
private partners are going to be able to finance.
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
Senator Hoeven. And if you would, either or both of you
talk for just a minute about the unique public/private
financing model, and what you hope to accomplish here, and how
you see that can provide benefits not only here, but to the
Corps in general going forward.
General Bostick. When you look at some of the work that we
are doing now, just the work that we are currently putting
money in our overall program, it would cost about $19.7 billion
of additional funds to finish that work currently in
construction. And we receive about a billion dollars in
construction each year so, on average, it is going to take
about $20 billion or 20 years to finish the work that we are
currently doing at this rate.
I think it is very important that we look at alternative
means of financing where we bring in the private sector, the
public sector, to see if we can accelerate these projects
because when you take that long to complete these projects, the
benefits are not accruing obviously, and the BCRs come down,
and the people are just unsatisfied. So I think alternative
financing is something that we must do. This is a first effort
to move out on them.
Senator Hoeven. Madam Secretary, did you have anything you
wanted to add?
Ms. Darcy. I would concur with General Bostick's comments,
and the fact that this is one of the first times the Army Corps
of Engineers has approached a project in this way, it shows
that we are open to looking at alternative ways of financing
these projects with limited funding. In this instance because
there are upstream concerns as well as downstream, we are going
to take a really close look at all of this. I am going to have
someone from my staff work with the upstream States in the next
month to try to make sure that we can get this all agreed to in
the timeframe that we have.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And also, I want to, I guess,
again emphasize the creativity that you are showing in both of
these projects, not only the public/private partnership, but
also in Minot you are--by providing for a study, you are
allowing the State and locals to go forward and build flood
protection while we are working on a--on the Federal portion of
the project.
That is the kind of creativity that is not only going to
save billions of dollars across the country for the Corps and
for the Federal Government, but it is going to get these
projects done sooner. So that creativity in the case of the
Minot region is enabling them to start building using State and
local funds. And so, I think, you know, just incredibly
important that you are providing this flexibility, and, again,
I want to thank you for that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do have some more questions. I will
certainly defer until the next round, but I just wanted you to
be aware.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. Just to--we will
have a second round of questions. Just a comment on that. This
has been an interesting discussion with me. The leadership of
the committee has worked with Senator Hoeven and with the Corps
of Engineers on a new approach toward dealing with this backlog
of important projects. And it will be interesting to see if
this significant State and local contribution, when matched
with the Federal flexibility and Federal dollars, provides a
way in the future to take that $20 billion figure and move more
rapidly in it.
So I appreciate the flexibility that you have shown in your
leadership of the Corps to work with this committee and with
Senator Hoeven on that issue. I think taxpayers would be
pleased with us for seeing how this works, and particularly
taking a project where there has been such a significant State
and local investment. It is easy for me to say because North
Dakota is a long way from Tennessee.
Let me ask two or three questions here, and then I will go
to Senator Feinstein, and then we will see if other Senators
have other questions.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
Let me talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This
is something that--well, a few years ago several of us,
including Senator Feinstein, reared back and asked our staff
what would a great country like the United States--what kind of
harbors do we need, particularly in light of the widening of
the Panama Canal. We came up with a figure, and Congress passed
a bill, set a target, and we have met that target for a couple
of years.
Now, we are talking about ports like Los Angeles, Long
Beach, Oakland, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, Memphis,
Louisiana, Cleveland Harbor. These are important parts of our
commerce in this country, and for two straight years this
committee has been able to meet our goals in terms of deepening
these harbors so the ships can do their work there and not do
it in ports in other places in the world.
Now, we also collect money from the private sector when
they come into the harbors. So my question, Secretary Darcy, is
how much money do you expect to collect in fiscal year 2017 in
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I believe that the Treasury has made an
estimate that in 2017 we would be collecting $1.6 billion. I
think it is down from what Treasury projected in 2016. I think
it is $1.6 billion.
Senator Alexander. Okay. How much----
Ms. Darcy. In collections in 2017.
Senator Alexander. In collections in 2017 to the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is the Treasury estimate. How much does
the budget propose that we spend of that $1.6 or $1.7 billion?
Ms. Darcy. The President's budget request for the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is $951 million for fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. So we are collecting taxes for a
dedicated purpose at about $1.6 or $1.7 billion to deepen ports
to improve commerce, but we are just going to keep the money
and not spend it even though we take it. And as a result of
those kinds of practices, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
today has over $9 billion in it, money that was collected from
ports, from people doing business in the port with the
expectation that it would be spent to keep the ports in good
shape and we are just stacking it up in the Federal bank.
INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
We talked a little earlier about the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund. We do not want that to happen there. We do not have much
money in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund that is unspent. Am I
correct about that?
Ms. Darcy. Currently, I think the unspent balance in the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund is $106 million for 2017.
Senator Alexander. The unspent, but we could spend that
for--I mean, that is yet to be determined how much of that we
are going to spend, correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, because that would have to be matched with
other revenues from the budget.
Senator Alexander. But if we matched it in 2017 as we did
in the current year, then there would be almost no unspent
money in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Am I correct about
that?
Ms. Darcy. If there was a 50 percent match coming from
General Treasury and coming from the Corps budget to match,
that is possible.
Senator Alexander. But on the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, we already got $9 billion that should have been spent on
our harbors, yet the President's budget only asks for $986
million, about $194 million short of the target that Congress
set for this year. So we are going to continue to build up the
unspent money in the trust fund. I am very concerned about
that.
NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY
Let me ask you a different--completely different question.
TVA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers all
mitigate the loss of fish caused by the dams that they operate.
This is a general subject that Secretary Darcy and I have
discussed before, but not a specific one. The Corps of
Engineers purchases fish from the National Fish Hatchery at
Dale Hollow and Irwin to restock fish in the Cumberland River
where there are dams and excellent fishing, by the way. TVA is
mitigating that loss of dam--loss of fish due to the dams. It
operates on the Tennessee River.
So you are already doing what I think you should be doing.
But my question is, does your budget request sufficiently
reimburse the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure our Nation's
mitigation fish hatcheries can continue to meet the mitigation
needs?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it does, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Secretary Darcy, and I
greatly appreciate your personal attention to that.
I am about out of time, so why do I not go to Senator
Feinstein, and then I see Senator Hoeven, I think, also has
questions.
BOAT TURBIDITY STUDIES
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, you and I and certain members in the House of
Representatives were able to get $100 million in the omnibus
for drought. That money is still there. The President did not
ask for the money to be continued in 2017; however, it is there
for the remainder of the year. And I am wondering, Commissioner
Lopez, would it be possible to use some of that money to begin
to do boat turbidity studies in the turbid waters both 12 miles
and 17 miles from the pumps to determine with some accuracy the
degree of smelt that are present?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I think that we have created a spending
plan for that money, and we have tried to build in maximum
flexibility to use that in the way that is going to be deemed
the most useful. So I think that we can. I think my answer to
your question is that we can expend some of that money for
those purposes.
I have recently seen some correspondence in preparing for
this hearing that calls into question the utility of that sort
of thing simply because there are so few smelt that are out
there. But I can certainly look into that, and I think we do
have a mechanism by which we could use some of that money for
that purpose.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I thank you very much for that.
Now, we know the smelt gravitate toward turbid waters.
Mr. Lopez. That is right.
Senator Feinstein. And so, it seems to me that the
monitoring should be in the turbid places, and the turbid
places where decisions are made about operations of the pumps.
We are in a drought emergency proclaimed by the governor. It
seems to me that this is an appropriate use of that money, and
I would like very much to work with you to see that the
appropriate monitoring gets set up as quickly as possible
because time is a-wasting. If we have El Nino, it is going to
be in the next couple of months or this month and maybe through
March, so this means moving with it. So I am going to get out
my needle and start poking at you, and I thank you for that
answer.
SHASTA DAM AND LOS VAQUEROS
I would also like to ask this question, and I go to pages
407 and 408 of the omnibus. 407 stated that ``The commissioner
of Reclamation shall complete the feasibility studies,'' and in
this section on 407 it refers to Shasta Dam. That was completed
in December of 2015. The next section on 408 refers to sites in
Los Vaqueros by November 30th, 2016. Will you complete those
studies?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, for both Sites and Los Vaqueros, we
need to work with non-Federal partners to fund even the study
portions of these. And to date, we do not have those agreements
in place, further----
Senator Feinstein. Commissioner, it is has been 9 years. We
are in our 10th year.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. The proponents, the Sites JPA and
Contra Costa, have both recently--as recent as last week, come
to us and asked that we actually slow the process down a little
bit to be more in line with the State's process of the funding
proposals that will be taken in November of 2017. They want to
assure that the study we do comports not only with our
requirements, but whatever requirements the State is going to
have. And so, we are working with them to try and position----
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me say something. This is a
law. It is not ``may complete.'' It is ``shall complete.'' So
if you would relay to the Sites JPA my concern that this has
taken too long, and you are now mandated by law to complete
these studies. Sir, I suggest you do it.
SAN LUIS EXPANSION
There is a third one, and that is the feasibility study
that has to do with the San Luis expansion, ``shall be
completed not later than December 31, 2017.'' This is not up to
the Sites JPA to make these decisions. You have the law.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, going back to sites, we do have that
mandate. You are absolutely correct. We recognize that. What we
do not have is we do not have the funds to do the work that
is----
Senator Feinstein. Then I suggest you use some of the
drought $100 million to get it done.
Mr. Lopez. We will look into it, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. But really, sir, you have got one
California Senator that is going to ride this. We worked hard
to get these things in that omnibus, and they are there now.
And it is not ``may,'' it is ``shall.'' And I think--I have met
with the committee. I think they are doing very good work, but
they are not the law, and this is the law. So you can quote me,
and if they have a problem, they can come see me, okay?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I will convey that to them.
SEISMIC SAFETY PROJECTS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Secretary Darcy, there are
four critical seismic safety projects, California VA projects:
L.A., San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego. And they will
be part of this new construction partnership between the Army
Corps and the VA. And I would like to ensure that they proceed
as quickly as possible because the seismic risk in California
is not going down. It is going up. So when do you expect to
execute the joint agreement with the VA regarding the new
collaboration?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know. I am going to ask General Bostick
if he might know. He has been working more closely with the VA
on these issues than I.
General Bostick. I have worked with Secretary McDonald very
closely in discussions on how some of these projects would
transfer. The first one obviously was the Aurora Hospital in
Colorado, and we are complete with that transfer, and we are
starting to work on it. We are taking each of these one at a
time and assessing them on a case-by-case basis, but moving out
as rapidly as we can. Much of----
Senator Feinstein. Could you give me some times, please? I
do not want to ask your successor 10 years from now, if I am
still alive, what happened.
General Bostick. The overall understanding is already
completed. If it is over $100 million, as in the cases of the
California hospitals, there is already agreement that the Corps
will take those on. The next step is to determine if the
designs are appropriate for us to move out and award a
contract. That work is ongoing.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, that is good news. Do you
have a specific timeline for when seismic safety projects can
proceed?
General Bostick. I do not have a timeline, but I will
respond----
Senator Feinstein. May I ask that perhaps before you leave
you could get a timeline? You set the course for your
successor?
General Bostick. I will do that.
Senator Feinstein. This is important, so thank you. And is
there any--do you have any thoughts on how this collaboration,
and maybe it does not affect these projects. But will they
introduce of themselves time delays?
General Bostick. I cannot speak to the group of them in
total, but if the project has not started, and some of these
are brand new projects if they have a design, then we can just
take that design if the design is adequate, then we can move
out and award a contract. In the case of Aurora, for example,
that took us a lot longer, a number of months in order to
transition that one. So I would say it is a case-by-case
situation, but I think it could be a clean transfer depending
on the design.
Senator Feinstein. So my job would be to see if the VA
facilities in L.A., San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego
have a design. Is that correct?
General Bostick. We can work on that, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, we will check.
General Bostick. We will follow up with you on that.
Senator Feinstein. And I would appreciate it if you could
let me know.
General Bostick. We will.
Senator Feinstein. The question is do they have a design,
and I thank you, General, very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks you. Thank you, Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Hoeven, whatever time--take time to ask whatever
questions you may have.
LAKE TSCHIDA
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner
Lopez, we have discussed Lake Tschida, Heart Butte Dam a number
of times. You have been out, and I appreciate you coming out. I
am drafting legislation to try to address this issue. We
continue to work on trying to find a solution.
Specifically, my legislation would direct the Bureau to
allow permittees in the trailer areas around Lake Tschida to
keep their existing trailers on the lots as long as they comply
with anchoring requirements set forth by the Bureau. These
permittees have made investments and improvements to the lots
and trailers over the years, all with the consent of the
Bureau. I think this would be a good compromise to ensure dam
safety while also allowing trailer owners to get full use out
of the investments that they made honestly with the approval of
the Bureau.
So my question is, would you be willing to work with me to
find agreement on legislative language that would satisfy the
Bureau's concerns while giving fair treatment to the trailer
owners around the lake?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I would certainly be willing to work
with you on trying to develop legislation that would meet both
those needs. You know my concerns about the trailers being
within the flood pool and the concerns that that creates for
us. If there is legislation to be worked on, we would work with
you on it.
MARKET RENT SURVEYS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I appreciate that. The other
question I have is in regard to some of the recent market rent
surveys that have been done by the BOR. As a result of those
surveys, rents will double at Heart Butte Dam, Lake Tschida,
but they triple at the Jamestown Reservoir and the Dickinson
Reservoir. And my understanding is that any rents received go
into maintenance and management of the reservoir.
And so, my first question is, is the Federal Government
making a profit on this, or is all that money being put back
into management and maintenance at those reservoirs?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I do not believe we are making any
profit on anything, and the money that we collect is used in
the O&M of those reservoirs.
Senator Hoeven. Well, and essentially where I am going with
this is, you know, those are very significant increases. We are
hearing from the people that live around those reservoirs and
have homes around those reservoirs. And there is a real concern
that the rents are being raised well above what is going into
management and maintenance at the reservoir, and well in excess
of what those management and maintenance needs or expenses are.
And that is a real concern because I think those rents are
supposed to be limited to the management and maintenance need
costs of those specific reservoirs. And so, I would ask that
you work with us to look at those and make sure that the
increases are not unreasonable, and that the money is not being
used for some other purpose.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I commit that we will look into that
question, and assure that we are not collecting any more than
we can use for those purposes.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the questions I had. I
appreciate it.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. I have got a
couple of questions.
INLAND WATERWAYS
Secretary Darcy, back to inland waterways. When we took the
big step forward on inland waterways, Congress, among other
things, got an agreement about what the priorities are for the
inland waterways. The users agreed to that as well, and that
helped us have some priority. That was the 2010 Capital
Development Plan. Last year--the Congress then asked--told you
to do a 20-year plan, but in our appropriations bill last year
we said you should use the 2010 Capital User Development Plan
priorities until we have a chance to review the new plans.
So my question is, will the Corps' new plan keep the list
of priorities in the 2010 Capital Development Plan that has
been endorsed by the inland waterway users?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we will be having the new capital
investment strategy delivered to you all before the month is
out, so we will be able to discuss the specifics of that while
you are putting together the bill for this year. I have not
reviewed the final study to be quite honest with you, so I
cannot answer whether they are the same priorities or not. But
as I say, we will be getting that to you before the month is
out, so.
Senator Alexander. Well, you know the priority I am
interested in.
Ms. Darcy. Let me guess.
REHABILITATION PROJECTS
Senator Alexander. Yeah. And along that line, as you make
your review, let me ask you to comment on something that really
affects all of your projects, and that is the economic analysis
that you use to justify a project, which I would assume you are
going through now as you make up--as you finish this new plan.
Funding the projects is largely based on their so-called
benefit-to-cost ratio. The higher the ratio, the better the
chance the project gets funded, the higher up the priority
list.
I am concerned that the economic analysis for a project may
not accurately take into account the true benefits. For
example, your economic analysis may--let us take the
Chickamauga Lock, for example. In 2004, 2.7 million tons of
cargo were moving through the lock every year. That was 12
years ago. Today it is closer to one million tons.
Now, one big reason it has gone from 2.7 to one million
tons is because the lock is in bad shape and needs to be
replaced. And so, if you based your benefit-to-cost ratio upon
the current lock cargo, it would not be realistic because when
you fix the lock, one would assume that you would be back up to
some number. I do not know what number. Maybe it would be 2.7,
or maybe it would be more, maybe it would be a little less.
But do you not think that has become outdated or
inappropriate to base your benefit-to-cost ratio on the way
things are today in a lock that has for 12 years been in such
bad shape that a lot of cargo simply could not go through it?
Ms. Darcy. I do agree, Senator, because in our equations
that we developed for rehabilitation projects, I do not think
that we take into account the historic significance of these
projects. And I think that we are losing those benefits in
making a future calculation.
As you know, rehabilitation projects do not compete well in
the budget because they have a lower benefit-to-cost ratio
because of that. I think we need to look at how we do the
evaluations for the benefit-to-cost ratio and rehabilitation
projects in a different way, and account for not only historic
patterns--historic benefits that they have brought, but without
that lock, what would have been lost if we did not have that
lock. That calculation, and all of the benefits that it has
brought not only up until one point in time, but historically,
I think needs to be calculated for a rehabilitation project.
COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Senator Alexander. Well, that is important testimony coming
from someone with your experience both in Congress and in your
current position. And finally, there also ought to be something
to consider--I mean, should we not complete projects we have
already started to build? For example, in Kentucky Lock we have
already spent $471 million, and on the Chickamauga Lock, we
have already spent $216 million. And as we have discussed, over
the last 2 years working with Congress, you restarted
construction.
But should we not take into account the fact that we
complete projects that we have already started to build?
Ms. Darcy. I think we should take that into consideration,
and I think finishing what you have started is a laudable goal.
It is just not always one that we are able to achieve in the
current fiscal situation.
Senator Alexander. There were several rules of life I
learned from my parents, and one that I learned from my father
was finish what you start, which turns out to be a pretty good
rule of life, and might even be good for the Corps of
Engineers.
I do not have any more questions. I will ask Senator
Feinstein if she does, and then after that, her comments, we
will conclude the hearing.
RESPONDING TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Senator Feinstein. I have one, and I think it will surprise
you. Madam Secretary, this committee held the Army Corps fiscal
year 2016 budget hearing last year on February 11, after which
members of this subcommittee submitted about 50 questions for
the record. Believe it or not, we just received the responses
to those questions yesterday evening, so it took a full year
after the hearing to get the answers back to us.
I do not think you find that acceptable, and I do not find
it acceptable. So can you help me understand why it took the
Corps over a year to provide the responses to questions from
this subcommittee?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, it is an unacceptable time, and for
that I apologize. There is a lengthy review process within the
Administration that takes place in order to respond to
questions, and it is too long. And I will try to come through
with a commitment to make it a shorter time because I will not
be here a year from now, so I want to be able to get you the
answers to your questions in a more timely manner this year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you, what do you think
is a reasonable response time, because we are going to submit
some questions from this hearing. And, candidly, I would like
them back in a couple of weeks because there are issues that
are pressing.
Ms. Darcy. They are answers to questions that you need the
answers to in order to formulate your bill.
Senator Feinstein. That is right.
Ms. Darcy. And, you know, that happens this summer and this
fall. I think 3 months is more than enough time for us to be
able to respond to your questions.
Senator Feinstein. So are you saying you put a response
time of 3 months, and that we would have our questions answered
in 3 months?
Ms. Darcy. That is my goal.
Senator Feinstein. What do you think?
Senator Alexander. Well, if you had not asked that, I was
going to. So here is what I think. My guess is that part of the
fault lies with the Office of Management and Budget. I do not
expect you to comment on that. But I think here is what we
ought to do. I think----
Senator Feinstein. Well, can I? Are you saying the Office
of Management and Budget reviews the answers to questions?
Senator Alexander. My guess is they do, right?
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. They do?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Alexander. Yeah, that is the way they work.
Senator Feinstein. Ask her if she could tell us why.
Ms. Darcy. Okay.
Senator Alexander. Why?
Ms. Darcy. Any of the responses that come to Congress from
agencies are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, my god.
Senator Alexander. Well, I would say to Senator Feinstein,
and, you know, I would guess that the idea of underfunding the
inland waterways and the Harbor Maintenance Account did not
come from the Army Corps of Engineers, but probably came from
the budget process. And so, here is what I think we should do.
Three months, Senator McConnell, and he has talked to
Senator Reid about this. We hope to move rapidly on the
appropriations process this year. We hope to keep big
controversial riders off the committee bill.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Senator Alexander. And they can debate them on the floor if
they want to do that, and hopefully Senator Feinstein and I
could do that. So we are moving pretty fast. This is our second
hearing. We have got two more, and we would like to be finished
by when, Tyler?
[Off audio.]
No, with the bill.
Well, he said early May. I am thinking maybe mid-April
would be--would be better. So 3 months, that is just 6 weeks
away. So I would suggest Senator Feinstein and I write a letter
both to the Corps of Engineers and to the Office of Management
and Budget and say we find this unacceptable. You have said you
are going to do your best to get answers in at least by 3
months, that we are moving on a fast pace on appropriations.
And there may be some questions that we would like to have an
answer to more rapidly than that.
You have got a background of work on the Hill, and we can
talk with you about that in an informal way. But it is very
important to us to know your thinking before we write the bill.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, that is right.
Senator Alexander. So we will formally write the letter
would be my suggestion if you would agree.
Senator Feinstein. That is fine with me.
Senator Alexander. And then we will ask staff to work with
you informally on the questions that we think are the most
important to us as we draft the bill. We would like to be among
the first in line when we present a bill to Senator McConnell
and Senator Reid to put on the floor, and I am hoping it is
mid-April or not long after that when we are finished with the
bill.
Senator Feinstein. And I hope that we can keep our
questions relatively limited to the need for this particular
session and our budget--our appropriations bill.
Senator Alexander. Yeah, so we will work with you. I mean,
Senator Feinstein and I will work with you, and if you say,
look, I have got 100 questions here, are there 20 that are more
important, we will help you--we will help prioritize that. And
that will be easier for you to give us responses to that. And
there may be some cases where you could simply give us an oral
response.
Senator Feinstein. That is right.
Senator Alexander. Just answer a question, and we do not--
we will not have to go through a lengthy process. Senator
Feinstein, do you have other questions or comments?
Senator Feinstein. No, I am fine. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Well, I want to thank all the witnesses
for being here today. I am sorry about the voting interrupting,
but I think we Senators had a chance to ask their questions and
to make their testimony. We, again, thank Secretary Darcy and
General Bostick for working with us, especially since this may
be their last hearing before the subcommittee.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time if they would like. We would like to have all
responses to questions to be provided within 30 days of
receipt. You said 3 months. For the priority questions or most
questions, we would like to ask for 30 days.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Currently, the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) and
accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the
Port of Mobile is ongoing. Together, they are expected to take
approximately 4 years to complete, which is around 2019 or 2020.
Secretary Darcy, can you give me an update on the status of this
undertaking and what, if anything, can be done to expedite this
process?
Answer. Preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, will require consultation with various resource agencies to
satisfy the National Environmental Protection Act requirements.
Coordination with a wide variety of Federal, State, and local agencies
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, the State Historic Preservation Office, etc.) is
currently on-going. Coordination is also ongoing with State and Federal
Environmental Agencies to include discussion of the modeling needs of
the project and begin the process of identifying realistic beneficial
use opportunities for the dredged material from this project. Sediment
removed in association with the potential deepening and widening of up
to 37 miles of channel could generate up to 63 million cubic yards of
material. Currently, the U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center
is collecting data to establish the existing and baseline environmental
conditions of the project area. The Corps has met with the USFWS and
work has begun on the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report.
Additionally, the documentation of the existing conditions for the
benefit-cost analysis is complete. This task included gathering
economic and demographic data, close review of Mobile Harbor's
operational practices and trends, and gathering historical commodity
flows and fleet data. Coordination is ongoing with the Corps' Institute
of Water Resources and the Port to determine the commodity forecast for
the Port, which is a critical step in the benefit analysis.
The proposed study duration was initially 56 months, but has been
expedited to allow the study to be completed in 48 months. Currently,
no additional measures have been identified that would allow the study
schedule to be further accelerated.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, an issue of importance to the
State of Alabama is the ongoing water dispute involving Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, and the Army Corps of Engineers. This Committee,
included language in the last year's appropriations bill specific to
this issue. In addition, the 2013 WRDA Conference Report contained
language in Section 1051 that encouraged the governors of Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia to reach a compromise to once and for all resolve
this matter stating that ``[a]bsent such action, the Committees of
jurisdiction should consider appropriate legislation to address these
matters including any necessary clarifications to the Water Supply Act
of 1958 or other law.'' Unfortunately, a resolution to this decades
long dispute does not seem any closer than when it began. On May 4,
2015, the Corps signed a Record of Decision regarding a Water Control
Manual (WCM) update that applies to the ACT River Basin. Both States of
Alabama and Georgia have filed lawsuits relating to the ACT WCM, with
no resolution in sight.
Subsequently, on October 2, 2015, the Corps released a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pertaining to the WCM for the ACF
River Basin. In comments recently submitted regarding the ACF DEIS,
Alabama, Florida, and even the Environmental Protection Agency noted
multiple concerns that the current proposal is contrary to legal
rationale, public policy, and prioritizes one State's water needs over
others. Assistant Secretary Darcy, can you respond directly to and
elaborate on the concerns surrounding both the ACT WCM and the proposed
ACF WCM? In addition, given its troubled history of decisionmaking in
both the ACT and ACF basins, wouldn't it be best to leave such
decisions to the affected States to work out their difference regarding
these basins without unproductive Corps interference, including Federal
legislation enabling such, if necessary?
Answer. The purpose of Water Control Manuals is to determine how
Federal projects should be operated for their authorized purposes, in
light of current conditions and applicable law. The Corps commenced its
most recent efforts to update the master water control manuals for the
systems of Federal improvements in the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa
(ACT) and Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) River Basins in
October 2007 and January 2008, respectively. The purpose of the updates
is to reflect changes in water usage and best practices about water
resource management.
The water control manual updates will not determine how the waters
of either basin will be allocated among the States. However, the
Department of the Army has continuously expressed to the Governors of
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia the Army's willingness, within the limits
of its authority, to adjust the operation of the Corps projects in the
ACT and ACF systems to accommodate any allocation of waters within
those basins upon which the three States agree, and to provide
technical assistance if requested by the States in reaching an
agreement.
The Corps is currently in the process of reviewing public comments
submitted on the draft EIS and water control manuals for the ACF basin.
The Corps is considering all comments, and is committed to working with
State and Federal agencies and stakeholders to address concerns. A
final EIS and approval of the updated ACF master manual are anticipated
by March 2017.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
veterans affairs construction projects
Question. Secretary Darcy, the 2016 Defense Authorization Act
directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with the Army Corps
to make the VA construction process more efficient, and Congress
provided an additional $100 million to compensate the Corps for this
new mandate.
There are four critical seismic safety projects at California VA
facilities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego) that
will be part of this new construction partnership between the Army
Corps and the VA, and I want to ensure that they proceed as quickly as
possible, given the seismic risk in California.
When do you expect to execute the joint agreement with the VA
regarding the new collaboration?
Answer. The Corps and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have
already entered into the initial Inter-Agency Agreements (IAA) for two
of the four of the projects in question. The San Francisco IAA was
signed on November 13, 2015 and the Long Beach IAA was signed on
February 4, 2016. The agreements for the two remaining projects, West
Los Angeles Buildings 205/208 and San Diego are expected to be signed
in the coming months. As the projects proceed towards construction
award this will require the agencies to modify these IAAs.
The Corps will make every effort to process IAA modifications in a
timely manner and ensure that these projects are completed efficiently.
The Corps will remain vigilant to avoid unnecessary cost growth and
incorporate sound engineering practices to protect public safety.
Question. Do you have a specific timeline for when seismic safety
projects in California can proceed?
Answer. Based on an initial assessment of the projects, the Corps
is forecasting a spring 2017 construction award for most portions of
the Long Beach, San Francisco, San Diego, and West Los Angeles
projects. San Diego and West Los Angeles projects were already
completely designed under contract by the VA, and Long Beach and San
Francisco are anticipated to have completed designs in June 2016 and
November 2016, respectively. The construction award date in spring 2017
is a forecast, because the Corps must also perform a Design and Cost
Validation process in order to accept these projects. Once the Corps
completes this process, and they are satisfied that the technical
solution, design and construction approach, and cost is appropriate,
they can work to solicit and award the projects. As the Corps continues
with this assessment phase of the individual project designs, they will
refine schedules accordingly with the intent of saving time, where
possible, while still implementing sound engineering practices. The
duration for construction completion for each project is still pending
further evaluation and will be based on the required work for each of
the facilities.
Question. How will you ensure that the new collaboration does not
introduce lengthy delays into the process?
Answer. There have been many discussions between the VA and the
Corps to reduce delays and gain efficiencies where practicable. On the
other hand, the new collaboration may itself lead to some delay in
execution. Introducing a new responsible design and construction agent
requires that the agency assume many significant responsibilities; the
Corps must ensure that the work already done meets public safety needs,
application of sound engineering practices, and code requirements, and
that in entering into this collaboration, it does so with a goal of
achieving and managing cost and schedule expectations. Public safety,
sound engineering, the maintenance of professional relationships, and
the appropriate due diligence to cost and execution issues are
paramount. The Corps assessment process evaluates the technical
solution and design approach, estimated construction cost, and
forecasted construction duration to ensure that expectations are met
and public safety is assured.
The Corps understands that many areas of California have seismic
risks, and will work with the VA to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary
delays.
south san francisco bay shoreline
Question. The San Francisco Bay region is extremely vulnerable to
rising sea levels as a result of climate change. Nearly 200 square
miles of the communities in the region sit in low-lying areas along the
shoreline, including some that are more than 13 feet below sea level.
The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study was originally
authorized by Congress in 2002, but the Chief's Report was only just
completed in December of 2015, more than a decade later.
Secretary Darcy, as you well know, this project is very important
to me. It will restore 2,900 acres of former salt ponds, create a new
recreation area, and construct a four mile long levee to protect homes,
high-tech businesses, and the new Silicon Valley water purification
center. This work is very important to the local economy, safety, and
quality of life for my constituents.
I want to thank you for including $3 million in the fiscal year
2016 work plan for pre- construction engineering and design work for
Phase 1 of the project.
What is the timeline for this step in the process, and when do you
expect the project to be ready for construction?
Answer. The next scheduled milestone is execution of a Design
Agreement for Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) with the
non-Federal partners. The current schedule identifies completion of PED
by September 2017.
Question. How long do you estimate Phase 1 construction will take?
Answer. The Corps estimates that it would take around 4 years to
construct phase I of this project once physical construction begins,
assuming the availability of funding at the maximum level that the
Corps can efficiently and effectively use for this project.
Question. Do you plan to prioritize funding the in fiscal year 2017
work plan for studies for the next phase of this project?
Answer. Should the Congress provide additional funding for which
this study of the next proposed phase of this project would qualify,
the study would be considered for funding in the 2017 Corps work plan
along with other programs, projects, and activities across the Nation
in competition for the available Federal resources.
california drought and army corps ``big picture''
Question. California's population has grown to 40 million people
according to recent census data. However, the State's water
infrastructure is largely unchanged from when it was built 50 years ago
when California was home to only 16 million people.
The drought in California is a powerful example of how important it
is for our country to keep up with changing water infrastructure needs.
I understand that the Army Corps has conducted a large-scale study
to assess flood risks and ecosystem restoration opportunities in
California's Central Valley and in the Delta.
I also understand that there have been studies of individual
watersheds in and around the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
Given continuing population growth and more unpredictable weather
as a result of climate change, it is more important than ever that the
Federal Government looks at water infrastructure in a ``big picture''
way rather than on an individual study-by-study basis.
Secretary Darcy, what steps has the Corps taken to look at water
infrastructure in a holistic way and ensure that different individual
projects are incorporated into a ``big picture'' understanding of
future needs?
Answer. California's water resources management challenges are
complex. As the Corps carries out its missions of flood and storm
damage reduction, commercial navigation, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration in this State, we are mindful that tens of millions of
people live and work there.
In Northern California, an example of a Corps effort in support of
watershed-level planning is the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Comprehensive Basin Study (also known as the Central Valley Integrated
Flood Management Study (CVIFMS)), which focuses on the Sacramento River
Basin. CVIFMS is intended to be a Federal companion to the California
Department of Water Resources' Central Valley Flood Protection Plan,
which is the State's plan for long-term sustainable flood management in
the Central Valley. The goals of CVIFMS are to:
--Develop and share a consistent and mutually complementary system-
wide strategy for flood risk reduction and environmental
stewardship with the State of California;
--Provide a blueprint to connect water resources management actions
across the Sacramento, Yuba, American, and Feather River
watersheds.
In evaluating water resources options in the Sacramento River
Basin, the Corps is building on earlier studies, such as the American
River Common Features and West Sacramento General Reevaluation Reports,
and the Sutter Basin Feasibility Study, to update the system's multi-
purpose performance baseline. The Corps work on CVIFMS continues to
inform other studies, such as the Sacramento River General Reevaluation
Study which began in July 2015, and has enabled the Corps to
strategically align many of its regional, interagency activities.
In Southern California, the Corps is currently working with the
Responses to Climate Change team and in particular with regard to
impacts to Corps' projects due to extreme drought. A Drought
Contingency Plan (DCP) Project Delivery Team (PDT) is working to assess
the applicability of current available Drought Contingency Plans
documents, as well as the need for updating these documents. The DCP
PDT consists of Corps personnel nation-wide, with at least one
representative from each Division. This endeavor to derive updated
guidance for preparation of DCPs is still ongoing.
Question. When evaluating projects, particularly in California,
does the Corps consider how they impact the State's overall water
supply infrastructure and needs?
Answer. The Corps' role in water resources management is focused on
its three main missions--flood and storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Bureau of
Reclamation has responsibility for the Federal Government's involvement
in water supply planning and operations in California.
However, the Corps is cognizant of California's significant water
supply challenges. While Corps studies and projects focus on its three
main mission areas, the Corps works with the Bureau of Reclamation, the
California Department of Water Resources, as well as other Federal,
State, and local agencies, in order to ensure the Corps work in
California complements their effort on water supply.
An example of this coordination is the Joint Federal Project at
Folsom Dam. This project is a cooperative effort between the Corps and
the Bureau of Reclamation. Once completed, it will help to further
reduce the flood risk in the Sacramento region; and at the same time,
Reclamation (which is the owner and operator of the dam) will have more
flexibility in maintaining water storage levels at the Dam.
Also, at the request of the non-Federal sponsors, the Corps is
currently working on two Feasibility Studies to conserve water for
Whittier Narrows Dam and Prado Dam. The dams' original authorization
are for flood control, however the Feasibility Studies will look at
water conservation opportunities such as permanent changes to dam
operations and the timing of water releases following storm events.
Constraints for these studies include ongoing dam safety issues as well
as the inherent flood risk in these areas with unpredictable flash
flooding. The local sponsor for the Whittier Narrows Dam Water
Conservation Feasibility Study is the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works. The Prado Basin Ecosystem Restoration and Water
Conservation Study is a dual-purpose study that includes both aquatic
ecosystem restoration and options for a change to the water control
plan for water conservation year-round at a higher elevation at Prado
Dam. The local sponsor for the Prado Basin study is the Orange County
Water District.
Question. Does the Corps have a system-wide strategy to address
water and ecosystem problems in the Sacramento--San Joaquin River
Delta?
Answer. The Corps Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study
(CVIFMS) is exploring options for system-wide flood risk management and
ecosystem restoration strategy in the Sacramento River Basin, the San
Joaquin River Basin, and the Bay-Delta. As mentioned above, the first
phase of CVIFMS focuses on the Sacramento River Basin, while the next
phase would focus on the San Joaquin River Basin.
army corps projects and water supply
Question. Secretary Darcy, I understand that the Corp's primary
mission is flood protection. However, there are many instances in which
flood protection projects also impact other important issues like water
storage and ecosystem restoration.
For example, seismic retrofits on a dam can also be used to raise
the height of a dam and store more water. Better forecasting of
impending storms can result in more scientific decisions on when to
release water from a reservoir and when to hold it, potentially
providing water supply benefits.
Secretary Darcy, how does the potential for these ``win-win'' type
of outcomes influence the Corps' internal policies and evaluation of
projects?
Answer. The Corps agrees that projects do not necessarily have to
be constrained to benefit only one purpose. The Corps seeks to achieve
multiple public benefits at individual projects to maximize returns on
Federal, State, and local investments. The Corps has extensive
experience managing reservoirs for multiple project purposes throughout
the United States, but the consideration of multiple project purposes
is a matter of making trade-offs. Currently, the Sacramento River
General Reevaluation Report underway is investigating both flood risk
reduction and ecosystem restoration opportunities in the lower
Sacramento River Basin.
With regard to reservoir operations, the Corps incorporates
flexibility to consider other objectives like water supply storage when
applicable. The Corps has always relied on weather forecasting as one
of a wide range of factors to determine when reservoir releases should
be made or held back to meet its public safety mission and other
objectives. Improved forecasting has allowed the Corps to adapt and be
more agile in responding to changing conditions.
The Corps water control manuals are not static, and are
continuously examined to determine if revisions are necessary based on
engineering manuals and regulations. In addition, especially during
times of significant drought, the Corps may allow for temporary
deviations of water control manuals in order to increase water supply
through conservation measures. As discussed below (Question #6), the
Corps has almost completed the Folsom Water Control Manual Update
project for the Folsom Dam; the update incorporates the use of
forecasts in flood release operations. Lessons learned at Folsom, as
well as at Lake Mendocino, could inform operations at other projects,
and help the Corps and its partners achieve the multiple purposes that
these reservoirs serve.
The Corps will continue to consider and evaluate opportunities for
multi-purpose water management strategies at both Corps-owned and
operated dams and those ``Section 7'' dams where the Corps may not own
or operate the facility but has purchased flood pool space and provides
oversight in accordance with the Water Control Manual, in consultation
with stakeholders, and in accordance with law and policy.
Question. Are there any legislative barriers that hinder the Corps
in assisting with drought mitigation, especially in light of the
ongoing investments the Army Corps is making in California water
infrastructure from a flood control and ecosystem restoration
standpoint?
Answer. No. There are no legislative barriers. The Corps is closely
coordinating with other Federal, State, and local partners to determine
how they can help support other agencies' objectives--such as water
storage and supply --while operating within its defined main missions,
which are flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
For example, 15 Federal, State, and local agencies have agreed to
coordinate with one another to identify and potentially implement
compatible Federal and non-Federal actions in the Yolo Bypass to
achieve multiple public benefits, including flood risk reduction, fish
and wildlife habitat restoration, water quality and supply
improvements, agricultural land preservation, recreation.
Question. In general, what is the Corps doing to help with drought
conditions in California?
Answer. The Corps has collaborated and communicated with the State,
resulting in conservation measures in some California reservoirs,
which, in turn, has helped to mitigate the effects of the drought on
urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors.
Below are some of the Corps ongoing activities:
Water Management.--The operations manuals for many Corps dams
includes a specific subset of instructions for drought conditions that
allow flexibility in making flood releases from the Corps ``flood
control space'' while the drought continues. The Corps water management
team is fully engaged with other State and Federal agencies regarding
operations and conditions, and is responsible for responding to
deviation requests from our local water partners at Corps-owned dams.
Water releases are closely coordinated and managed with local water
users, power generating partners, and the Corps water management team,
including times when drought conditions dictate that water releases
fall below required or recommended flows.
Emergency Operations.--Under the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergency Act (Public Law 84- 99, as amended), the Corps can provide
emergency water assistance due to drought. The Corps has the authority
to transport emergency water supplies of clean drinking water for human
consumption to any locality designated as a drought distressed area.
Affected localities also have the option of purchasing storage space
where available at Corps reservoirs. Also, the Corps is authorized to
construct wells in drought distressed areas if the option is not
commercially available.
Regulatory Division.--During drought conditions, local water
interests may consider temporary and permanent measures to improve
water extraction such as pumps, siphons, wells, and dredging. Most
activities fall under the Corps Nationwide Permit Program or the
District's general permit for emergency actions, pursuant to Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In some emergency situations, procedures may be approved by the
Corps to issue a permit more quickly following informal coordination
with resource agencies. For example, the Corps expedited a permit that
allowed the California Department of Water Resources to construct a
large temporary drought barrier in June 2015 to hold back saltwater
from the interior Delta, and thus protect its freshwater supply.
Contracting.--PL 84-99 emergency response requests typically come
with a contracting component--such as contracting for emergency
services, supplies, construction, or system design. Contracting
Division has the authority to streamline the contracting process where
appropriate. Additionally, the Corps could modify existing contracts to
change water use or conservation measures at our sites.
Real Estate Division.--Where needed, the Real Estate Division is
authorized to procure land or buildings that might be needed to store
water for pumping or for staging water bottle distribution.
The Corps currently has a deviation to the water control plan in
effect for Whittier Narrows Dam for the purpose of water conservation.
Last flood season the Corps had a short-term deviation in effect for
Prado Dam and the Corps is considering a request for a 5-year deviation
for Prado Dam. The deviations allow the Corps to impound additional
water for water conservation purposes. In fiscal year 2016, Whittier
Narrows Dam conserved 1,300 acre-feet of water from the deviation.
Similarly, Prado Dam conserved 7,300 acre-feet.
beneficial use of clean dredge material
Question. I understand that more than 400 ports and 25,000 miles of
navigation channels are dredged throughout the United States to keep
ship traffic operating efficiently. The operations and maintenance of
our ports falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Aquatic ecosystem restoration is also a critical mission of the
Army Corps. Coastal resilience projects, like wetland construction,
often require additional clean sediment material. This is true in many
places all along the California coastline.
It seems to me that there is an opportunity here for a ``win-win''
scenario by using clean material dredged from ports for ecosystem
restoration projects that have a need for additional dredged material.
Secretary Darcy, does the Corps have a process for pairing up
projects so that material dredged from one project can be used in a
second project?
Answer. Yes. There is coordination across Corps mission areas that
can reduce overall costs. The beneficial use of dredged material is
considered when and where practicable. The Corps also has a Regional
Sediment Management Program to establish regional management strategies
and link sediment management actions at authorized Corps projects.
Management activities with other Federal agencies, State, and local
governments are coordinated within the boundaries of physical systems,
including inland watersheds, rivers, estuaries, and the coast.
Question. Given the need for dredged material in ecosystem
restoration projects, does the Army Corps currently view dredged
material as a resource, rather than just as a waste product from
waterways?
Answer. Yes. The Corps considers dredged material as a resource and
has been using dredged material beneficially for decades. There are
numerous examples of the Corps using dredged material to nourish
eroding shorelines and create offshore berms to reduce wave energy and
provide a sand source for littoral drift. Dredged material has also
been used to create wetlands, oyster reefs, submerged aquatic
vegetation, bird islands, and other aquatic habitat, as well as to
restore Brownfields, cap landfills, and enrich soil for agriculture.
Dredged material has even been used as a construction product. Examples
include restoration of the Middle Harbor Enhancement Area using dredged
material from the Oakland Harbor project; construction of the Senator
Paul S. Sarbanes Poplar Island Ecosystem Restoration project with
dredged material from the Baltimore Harbor & Channels project;
restoration of wetlands in the Mississippi River Delta using dredged
material from the Mississippi River Baton Rouge to the Gulf project;
and the use of sand from many coastal projects to re-nourish beaches
and reduce erosion. While many of these beneficial use alternatives can
be costly, some can be accomplished as the least cost alternative.
Question. Are there any barriers to using dredge materials more
productively other than cost?
Answer. There are many factors that must be considered in deciding
whether or not dredged material can be used beneficially, and where the
material can be placed. These include, but are not limited to, the type
of material (whether it is sandy, rocky, fine- grained, etc.), whether
or not there is contamination in the dredged material, the needs of any
biological resources that would be benefitted, time of year
restrictions for the dredging and placement activities, and type and
availability of equipment required to place the material. For instance,
it is not good practice to use fine-grained or contaminated material to
re-nourish beaches or create oyster bars.
updating dam operation manuals
Question. The technical decisions made by reservoir operators
regarding when to release water have become particularly important
during the prolonged California drought. We want to make sure that we
are not wasting even a single drop of water by releasing it when we
don't have to.
In California, I understand that many regions receive a large
portion of their annual rainfall from intense, but geographically
narrow storm events called Atmospheric Rivers.
It seems to me that if we are better able to predict these storm
events and the amount of precipitation they bring, we would be able to
make more informed decisions about how we operate and manage our dams
and reservoirs.
I believe this is another instance of bureaucratic inertia rather
than prioritization of the latest science. We must ensure that the
Federal Government is actually using the latest science to make
informed water decisions.
Secretary Darcy, how is the Corps incorporating the latest science
regarding Atmospheric Rivers into the way it operates dams?
Answer. The Corps is closely following the latest science on
Atmospheric Rivers. In operating Corps-owned dams, and in managing
flood releases at Section 7 dams, the Corps has incorporated the latest
science. Corps dams are designed for extreme weather events. Given the
fact that the Corps dams are designed for the extreme events, the
agency must also balance the needs for flood control and other
authorized purposes, relying heavily on several tools to ensure that
the water conservation efforts do not compromise the safety of the dam.
Such tools include: (1) Weather forecasts from the National Weather
Service and private weather contractors; (2) Flow forecasts from the
River Forecast Center; and (3) Corps Water Management System (CWMS)
numerical models that can predict the water level at the dams from
forecasted precipitation.
The Corps continues to evaluate its portfolio of dams with regard
to risk and vulnerability to an array of potential scenarios that might
impact the overall safety of the facilities. This could be attributed
to a host of factors, including extreme design events and loading
scenarios, as well as hydrologic and seismic events, and pertinent
maintenance challenges associated with aging infrastructure. One of the
contributing factors that is evaluated is the development of inflow
frequency curves that explore the full range of loading conditions
(including extreme events). This will help dam operators estimate how
frequently the extreme events occur at each dam and how those loading
events influence decisions with respect to Federal investment
strategies to address infrastructure needs. Specifically, the Corps has
almost completed the Folsom Water Control Manual Update project which
is incorporating the use of forecasts in the flood release operations
rule set for that Section 7 reservoir.
The Corps is currently participating in a 5-year research study to
investigate use of the latest science in forecasting of the Atmospheric
Rivers. If promising, the results of the study could be incorporated
into operation of reservoirs. The study is known as the Forecast-
Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) research in Lake Mendocino, and it
is a pilot study that would use atmospheric river (advanced hydro-
meteorological) forecasting data to inform water management decisions
in a manner which reflects current and forecasted conditions. The study
was scoped in 2014, and began in 2015. The research is projected to be
a 5-year effort, and the results may indicate whether this technology
can be applied in actual operations of certain projects. The Corps is
participating in this pilot project with a consortium led by Scripps
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, along with the Sonoma
County Water Agency, California Department of Water Resources and State
Climate Office, Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA's National Weather Service,
Earth Systems Research Laboratory, and Restoration Center, USGS, and
the private sector.
Question. How does the Corps prioritize which dam operations
manuals need to be updated and when?
Answer. Updates are prioritized based on several factors, such as
significance of the changes to original design components, operations,
hydrology, environmental changes and/or a need to evaluate proposed
changes to existing water control plans, vulnerability of the
populations downstream of the dam, and interest from downstream
partners. Prioritization of water control manual updates must also be
made alongside other competing demands within the Corps budget.
Question. What is the Army Corps' basis for refusing to accept non-
Federal contributions to pay for upgrades to these flood control
manuals?
Answer. The Corps can--and does--accept funding to update manuals
for Corps- operated and maintained dams. Paragraph (5)(B) of Section
1046(a) in WRRDA 2014 states, ``The Secretary [of the Army] may accept
and expend amounts from non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies
to carry out this subsection and reviews of project operations or
activities resulting from those reviews.'' This only applies to
projects that are ``operated and maintained by the Secretary [of the
Army]'', meaning projects operated and maintained by the Corps of
Engineers. Section 1046 does not allow the Corps to accept funds for
projects operated and maintained by other agencies.
Question. How is the Corps ensuring that rigid water release
schedules do not undermine other Federal efforts to increase water
storage?
Answer. The Corps uses operational flexibility afforded by the
water control manuals to store water for the longest period of time
possible, helping meet the needs of partners without compromising the
flood control mission. The water release schedules prescribed by the
Corps consider the most recent forecasts available as well as the
results of coordination with our partners. Water release schedules are
reevaluated on a 6-hour basis during flood events and daily during non-
flood events to ensure that changes to the reservoir, stakeholder
concerns, and forecasts are appropriately considered. The Corps also
has a process for deviations from control plans, outlined in ``Guidance
on the Preparation of Deviations from Approved Water Control Plans,''
Regulation No. 10-1-04, dated 18 December 2014. This allows the Corps
to operate reservoirs to meet flood control requirements while
considering other objectives, such as increased water storage.
Question. How has California's drought affected the Corps'
management of Federal dams?
Answer. In general, the drought decreased the amount of water
coming into and being stored in Corps reservoirs, which reduced the
number of occasions where water was released solely for flood control
reasons. It has also showcased the importance of coordination with
partners, especially when the storage levels in the reservoirs entered
the flood control space. Consistent communication between the Corps and
its partners has helped keep all parties aware of upcoming water
demands, inflow and precipitation forecasts, and changes to reservoir
release schedules.
Question. When updating operation manuals, is the Corps accounting
for its other missions, like aquatic ecosystem restoration, to ensure
that water storage and releases benefit the California water system in
multiple ways?
Answer. The Army Corps always considers its missions and the
reservoirs' authorized purposes, including when updating water control
manuals. The Corps works collaboratively with Federal and non-Federal
partners to update water control manuals to identify and incorporate
benefits for different missions, and Corps partners have opportunities
to provide comments before any documents are finalized.
merced army corps project
Question. Merced County, a rural county in California, has been
struggling for years to complete project elements of the Merced Streams
Group that was authorized in 1944. One major project element of the
Merced Streams Group that is yet to be completed is a flood control
system on the Black Rascal Watershed.
It is my understanding that the project has remained stalled due
scarce Federal resources, delays, and errors on the part of Corps
district staff.
In 2013, the Corps advised Merced County that it could use local
dollars to move forward with a cost share agreement. In 2015, however,
the Corps reversed its position and said only Federal funds could be
used.
Secretary Darcy, can you explain the current situation with Merced
County and what needs to be changed to allow them to use local dollars
to advance the project?
Answer. Pursuant to the Corps' contributed funds authority (33
U.S.C. 701h), the Corps may accept such funds only if Federal funds
have been appropriated for the study. That has not occurred because
studies elsewhere in the Nation were considered a higher priority for
the available Federal funds. In addition, the proposed work was
considered in formulation of the original Merced County project
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534). It was
not part of the recommended plan due to concerns involving impacts to
federally listed species.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, on February 11, 2016, I sent
you a letter signed by 13 of my colleagues asking the Army Corps to
finalize and publish implementation guidance for Section 2106 of the
Water Resources and Development Act (WRRDA). WRRDA was signed into law
in June 2014. This Subcommittee secured $25 million in funding for
Section 2106 in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. And
yet, the Army Corps has still not completed implementation guidance. It
is critical that this is done as soon as possible so that eligible
ports have access to the appropriated funding and can maximize the
effectiveness of Section 2106. When do you expect to issue guidance for
Section 2106? Has the Army Corps met with eligible ports to understand
how Section 2106 funds could be maximized on a port by port basis?
Answer. The Corps expects to finalize implementation guidance for
Section 2106 in the coming months. Individual Corps districts
coordinated with eligible ports to determine how they would utilize the
Section 2106 funds. In addition, the Corps Headquarters has been
working to develop criteria to allocate those funds, in consultation
with the American Association of Port Authorities. Corps Headquarters
has also been consulting with U. S. Customs and Border Protection on
how payments will be made to shippers and importers in those cases
where ports elect to provide those payments.
Question. Congress created Section 2106 so that donor ports and
energy transfer ports can better address competitiveness by maintaining
infrastructure through expanded uses and environmental remediation and
by establishing a rebate program for importers and shippers to reduce
cargo diversion to non-U.S. gateways. It is critical that the Army
Corps provide ports the necessary flexibility to target the rebate
program to cargo that is most at risk of diversion to non-U.S. ports.
How will the Army Corps work with eligible ports to address cargo
diversion? With respect to infrastructure improvements through expanded
uses and environmental remediation projects, how will the Army Corps
ensure eligible ports can define project parameters and contract the
work themselves to ensure timely and cost effective project delivery?
Answer. Section 2106 specifies that payments may be provided to
importers entering cargo or shippers transporting cargo through that
port. The Corps has no authority to provide ports the flexibility to
target the rebate program to cargo that is most at risk of diversion to
non-U.S. ports. The Corps will issue implementation guidance and work
with the ports to define the process and infrastructure improvements
under expanded uses and environmental remediation projects, whether the
ports decide to perform the work themselves or have the Corps perform
the work for them.
Question. Washington State is the leading shellfish producing State
in the Nation, employing over 2,700 people around the State, including
in rural areas. The Army Corps, through the Seattle District, regulates
the shellfish industry under Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act
authorities. In 2007, the Army Corps adopted Nationwide Permit 48 (NWP
48) to permit existing shellfish farms, and an updated NWP 48 was
adopted in 2012 to cover shellfish farms through March 2017. Since 2007
and the initial NWP 48, Washington growers have submitted approximately
1,000 requests for NWP 48 verification. I am very concerned by reports
that none of these requests have been approved.
The commercial shellfish industry contributes over $184 million
annually to the Washington State economy, and shellfish are important
economically and culturally to tribal and non- tribal harvesters. In
all industries, including shellfish growing, certainty for participants
is important for success. I understand that the Army Corps is working
with Federal partners, including the National Marine Fisheries Service
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to complete action on Endangered
Species Act permitting requirements through a Programmatic Biological
Assessment. Can you provide me with an update on when this process will
be completed? How does the Army Corps plan to communicate with the
regulated community as the Programmatic Biological Assessment is being
finalized and once the regulations have been implemented on how they
can obtain verifications?
Answer. At this time, a Section 7 ESA consultation is underway
between the Corps and the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) for aquaculture activities.
This consultation is the result of several years of coordination among
the Corps and the Services. Once this consultation is completed, many
activities with pending requests for verification under NWP 48 may be
verified. Any automatic verification of the pending projects before
completion of this consultation would not be compliant with the
Endangered Species Act or the ``endangered species'' general condition
for the NWPs. Both the Services have indicated they will complete their
consultations this spring.
Question. I also understand the Army Corps is reviewing options to
update regulations of shellfish growers under the Clean Water Act. As
this effort continues and potential pathways are explored, can you
share your plan for communication and engagement with interested
stakeholders, including the State of Washington, Federal agencies,
shellfish growers, and tribes? Increased transparency and communication
with interested parties, including explanations of regulatory authority
under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, are of great
interest to me and I ask that you submit an update and expected
timelines on these efforts to me in writing.
Answer. Following receipt of the final Biological Opinions, the
Corps' Seattle District intends to host an open house to explain to
shellfish growers and all other interested parties the conditions of
the Biological Opinions and the next steps for the pending
applications.
Question. The Amy Corps, through the Northwest Division, plays an
important day-to-day role in implementing the Columbia River Treaty as
a member of the U.S. Entity. The U.S. Entity engaged in a multi-year
process with tribal nations and domestic stakeholders throughout the
Pacific Northwest to reach a regional consensus to modernize the
Columbia River Treaty. The ``Regional Recommendation for the Future of
the Columbia River Treaty after 2024'' was presented to the
Administration in December 2013, and the Administration has since
developed a high-level consensus position for negotiations with Canada
based upon these recommendations.
Twice the entire Northwest Congressional Delegation wrote the
Administration asking to begin formal negotiations with Canada.
Unfortunately, we keep being told negotiations could begin soon and
little progress has been made.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, my constituents are greatly concerned
about the impacts a change in Administration may have on these
negotiations. I urge you to encourage the Administration to begin
formal negotiation with Canada as soon as possible.
Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division
Commander, as a member of the U.S. Entity for the Columbia River
Treaty, has informed the Department of State that the U.S. Entity is
ready to support and assist in the negotiations with Canada on the
future of the Columbia River Treaty.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, as we have previously
discussed, the Mud Mountain Dam project is of great importance to me,
my constituents, and Washington State. I appreciate the time and energy
you have put into finding a path forward with NOAA to ensure the Army
Corps meets its Endangered Species Act and tribal trust
responsibilities by replacing the diversion dam and building a new fish
trap facility.
While I am pleased that the fiscal year 2017 budget request
provides $22.35 million and a construction new start for Mud Mountain
Dam, I firmly believe this project is not a new start. Similar projects
have not been subject to this hurdle, for example the Columbia River
Fish Mitigation and Missouri River Recovery Program projects. Replacing
the old barrier structure and fish trap facility is a continuation of
the Army Corps' Endangered Species Act and tribal trust
responsibilities and are simply requirements to mitigate the original
construction and ongoing operation of Mud Mountain Dam for flood
control.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, how is the Mud Mountain Dam project
different than the Columbia River Fish Mitigation or Missouri River
Recovery Program? Can you explain why a Biological Opinion which will
bring an existing Army Corps project into compliance is a new start?
Further, I ask that you work with me to ensure there are no funding
gaps for this critical project if Congress passes a Continuing
Resolution before a full-year fiscal year 2017 appropriations measure.
Answer. Multiple construction actions have been occurring over
numerous years on the Columbia and Missouri in an effort to mitigate
the impacts of ongoing operation of Federal projects to threatened and
endangered species and their habitat, while at Mud Mountain Dam the
plan is to initiate new construction to replace a 100-year old
facility. The Mud Mountain Dam was determined to be a new start due to
the scope and cost of this new investment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. After many years of strong support from the Army Corps,
there was no funding for continuation of construction of the McCook
Reservoir of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan in the Administration's
fiscal year 2017 Budget. The project was authorized in 1988, and the
Army Corps' own documentation since then shows that it has always been
considered one flood protection project, and it has consistently
received funding. The reservoir provides $100 million in annual
benefits to 3.1 million people in 37 counties, including the City of
the Chicago. It is 65 percent complete, and enjoys a three to one
benefit cost ratio. Stopping construction of this project does not make
sense.
Why was funding discontinued in the President's budget? Will you
commit to seeking its inclusion in the Army Corps' fiscal year 2017
work plan?
Answer. The 2016 Corps work plan added $5 million above the Budget
level in order to provide the full amount that the Corps estimated it
would need to complete ``Stage I'' of the McCook Reservoir project. The
December 2011 consent decree with EPA and the Department of Justice
requires the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRD) to ensure that the first of two McCook Reservoirs is in
operation by December 31, 2017. The focus of the Corps funding to date
has been to help MWRD meet its December 31, 2017 deadline by
constructing part of the infrastructure called for in the consent
decree. The Corps has now funded all of the authorized Federal share of
that work, which will enable MWRD to collect and hold combined sewer
overflow in this reservoir during a storm.
The 2017 Budget does not include funding for ``Stage II'' of the
McCook Reservoir project. Should the Congress provide additional
funding for which this project would qualify, this project would be
considered for funding in the 2017 Corps work plan along with other
programs, projects, and activities across the Nation in competition for
the available Federal resources.
Question. Investment in flood prevention in the Metro East region,
including protecting our levees, is vital to protecting Metro East
communities.
Will the Assistant Secretary commit continued open dialogue with
the local Flood Prevention District? Will the Assistant Secretary
commit to providing regular updates to me or my staff as they happen?
Answer. The Metro East levee system consists of 75.8 miles of
levees located in Madison, St. Clair, and Monroe Counties in Illinois.
The Corps is working on this project with the Southwestern Illinois
Flood Protection District Council (FPD) and the local levee districts
to reduce the risk of under-seepage at these levees. The Corps welcomes
the views of all interested parties, including the FPD, the local levee
districts, and the public. Should the FPD or the local levee districts
have any questions or concerns, they may contact the Corps at the
district office, division, or headquarters levels, or my staff. The
Corps provides periodic updates to my office on this project. I would
be happy to work with you and your staff as well, in order to help keep
you informed of the project status.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. Section 1024 of WRRDA provides that the Corps can accept
materials and services from a non-Federal entity in an emergency
situation if the Secretary deems it to be in the public interest.
Considering maintenance needs of Corps assets system-wide, this would
seem to be a good opportunity to leverage stakeholder resources. It is
my understanding that this section has not yet been implemented.
Does the Corps have draft implementation guidelines yet? Could we
have a copy?
Answer. The Corps is currently preparing implementation guidance
for Section 1024 of WRRDA 2014.
Question. Has this information been shared with stakeholders that
depend on waterway systems to ensure it is workable from the private
partner perspective?
Answer. The Corps has discussed this provision with interested
stakeholders. Their input is being taken into consideration during the
preparation of the implementation guidance.
Question. How does the Corps interpret ``emergency''? With
substantial maintenance needs across the system, it is very possible
that failures could occur outside of a situation in which there is an
emergency declaration. Would these types of failures be eligible for
private repair funding?
Answer. Section 1024 authorizes the acceptance of materials and
services to repair, restore, or replace a water resources development
project that has been damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency.
Section 1024 is not limited to situations where there has been an
emergency declaration by the President.
The Corps does not view Section 1024 as allowing the Corps to
accept services or materials to address general repair and maintenance
needs. However, the Corps is authorized under 33 U.S.C. 701h to accept
contributed funds from non-Federal public entities and from nonprofit
entities, with the consent of the affected local Government, for that
purpose.
Question. Has the Corps settled how to handle issues regarding who
liable for damage or injuries caused during emergency repairs using
private funds? Do you have all the authority you need to settle
questions over liability and licensing?
Answer. Yes, we have all the authority needed to resolve questions
over liability and licensing. Based on discussions with stakeholders,
we expect to be able to address this concern.
Question. What is the timeline for having guidelines in place and
allowing private partners to assist with emergency repairs?
Answer. This guidance is being developed and we anticipate issuing
it later this year.
Question. Stakeholders in Oklahoma have expressed an interest in
allowing assets to be used by the Corps at no cost, but have been told
that regulations prohibit them from accepting use of resources. For
instance, private entities may have a dredge that they would like to
offer to the Corps to use upon request. What is the rationale for not
accepting this assistance?
Answer. In general, the Corps needs specific authority to use
equipment being provided at no cost, rather than obtaining such
equipment using Federal procurement authorities and regulations. We
anticipate the Corps would in many cases be able to accept and use a
dredge provided for the purpose of repairing or restoring a project
damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency under Section 1024,
but cannot answer more specifically until the implementation guidance
is issued.
Question. In the 2014 reauthorization of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act (WRRDA), Congress included a provision requiring
the Corps to conduct an assessment of all of their properties to
determine which are ``not needed for the mission of the Corps of
Engineers'' (Section 6002). The intent of this language was to assess
how Congress could help unburden the Corps from the considerable
backlog in maintenance needs.
In the hearing, it was stated that the Corps has not yet started
this assessment. When will this task be undertaken? When can we expect
to see the draft report? When can we expect to have the final report?
Answer. Implementation guidance for Section 6002 of WRRDA 14 was
issued on August 7, 2015. The Corps periodically reviews the need for
the Federal properties at its projects and uses existing property
disposal methods for those properties if they are no longer needed to
accomplish the agency mission. These efforts are ongoing.
Question. The Corps has previously shared that the disposal process
for unneeded properties is so cumbersome and costly that it is often
easier and less expensive in the short run to simply maintain unneeded
assets. Would granting the Corps disposal authority independent of GSA
assist in making the disposal process more manageable? What does the
Corps need from Congress to be able to divest of unneeded assets in a
cost-effective manner?
Answer. Generally, GSA is responsible for the disposal of real
property that is no longer mission-critical to Federal agencies. This
authority works well for land and general use improvements. In some
cases, the Corps will seek to dispose of lands associated with a
project as part of an effort to deauthorize the project. In those
cases, the Corps generally would perform a study and seek
deauthorization of the project prior to submitting the disposal package
to GSA. These studies evaluate environmental concerns, safety concerns
and the concerns of non-Federal interests. New processes are now in
place to reduce the time required to fund, study and make
recommendations as appropriate addressing the proposed end state of the
project. To further reduce the timeline, future studies will include a
recommended disposal plan, where feasible, for Congressional
consideration.The 2016 Corps work plan and the 2017 Budget included
funding for studies on the disposition of assets that no longer have a
strong Federal interest; the Corps has completed the first of these
studies and is preparing to start five more in 2016.
Question. The Corps was directed to produce a list of at least $18b
in projects that are eligible for deauthorization because a significant
amount of time has lapsed without getting funded. This list was
produced in October of last year and found a sizable--$14b--amount of
old, unfunded projects. An earlier report from GAO found that the Corps
does not have written guidance for their districts requiring them to
track studies and projects that have been authorized but not funded,
leading to incomplete information regarding projects that may be
eligible for deauthorization.
Has the Corps provided a written policy for districts to follow
regarding cataloging all authorized projects and studies? If it has
not, when will an internal policy setting how to track this information
be set? Will the Corps then reassess the deauthorization list?
Answer. Yes, the Corps provided written implementation guidance to
its divisions and districts for Sections 6001 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 and Section 1001 (b )(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. The Corps is
developing an authoritative database for authorized projects and will
use it to provide the Backlog Report and annual Minimum Funding Lists
in accordance with Section 6001. As projects are identified for
deauthorization eligibility they will be included in future annual
deauthorization processes consistent with amendments to Section 1001
(b)(2).
The Corps is currently developing written guidance for
deauthorizing studies in accordance with Section 710 of WRDA 1986, and
is developing an authoritative database of studies to support this
effort.
Question. Does the list published in the Federal Register in
October 2015 reflect information gathered from all of the districts?
Answer. Yes, the list published in the Federal Register in October
2015 reflects information gathered from all of the Corps districts.
______
Questions Submitted to Estevan R. Lopez
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Please explain why the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) did not require any new data in 2004, when it changed the
Technical Memorandum and currently does not require data regarding the
performance of steel water pipe or ductile iron pipe with bonded
dielectric coatings in highly corrosive soils but requires significant
data regarding other corrosion protection methods for ductile iron
pipe.
Answer. Reclamation prepared the Technical Memorandum (TM) in
response to Congressional direction received in 2003 (H.R. REP. NO.
108-212, at 106) (2003),\1\ and it was first published in 2004. The
data as well as the recommendations in the TM encompass all types of
buried metallic pipe. Reclamation's technical staff reviewed and
evaluated industry standards, national consensus standards, independent
engineering studies, and performance data from Reclamation projects as
well as other Federal and non-Federal pipeline owners and water
utilities. Reclamation also met with representatives from the Ductile
Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) in May of 2003 and January of
2004 to discuss technical issues and literature regarding corrosion
mitigation of ductile iron pipe prior to publication of the TM.
Reclamation also indicated that any other information DIPRA wished to
provide would be welcomed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The relevant text from the House Report states: ``The Committee
is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is not adhering to its
guidelines, described in the ``Corrosion Prevention Criteria and
Requirements'', with respect to the use of ductile iron pipe and steel
pipe. With respect to both products, the Bureau of Reclamation should
be attempting to establish good engineering practices which address the
long-term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed over
time. The Committee recognizes that additional work is needed to
develop a more definitive corrosion standard on which to decide the
best product for a particular application. Accordingly, the Committee
directs the Commissioner of Reclamation to conduct a study on the
current corrosion criteria and to report to the Committee on
Appropriations by March 1, 2004, on its recommendations for a more
definitive standard. Until a more appropriate standard is in place,
which reflects the basic principle of long-term cost effectiveness, the
current criteria should continue to be used.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation evaluated the technical content of the available
literature, the thoroughness of the analyses, the reasonableness of the
conclusions, and finally, the likely objectivity of the author(s).
Reclamation then used its best technical judgment to perform what we
believe is a balanced assessment of the available information and to
develop a reasonable set of recommendations designed to meet
Reclamation's 50-year minimum project service life.
During this evaluation, Reclamation found a number of respected
studies which raised significant technical concerns regarding corrosion
under unbonded dielectric coatings, including polyethylene encasement
(PE). Reclamation also found that the effectiveness of PE had been the
subject of debate within the pipeline and corrosion industries for
years and that the results of engineering studies on the subject differ
widely. In addition, Reclamation found that many professionals in these
industries question the effectiveness of a cathodic protection system
to counter the effects of corrosion under intact PE.
As a result of that review, Reclamation concluded that many
corrosion engineers believe that buried pipes, which need a high level
of corrosion protection, should have a bonded dielectric coating and
cathodic protection. This conclusion is supported by the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers' (NACE) International Standard
Practice SP0169 ``Control of External Corrosion on Underground or
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems''.
During its evaluation of these analyses and data, Reclamation
balanced these technical concerns against the relatively good
performance record of ductile iron pipe with PE and recommended the use
of PE on all sizes of ductile iron pipe in all but the most severely
corrosive environments (i.e. soil resistivity 2000 ohm-cm). In those
severely corrosive environments, bonded dielectric coating and cathodic
protection (CP) was recommended for all metallic pipe types (including
ductile iron pipe).
Based on this work, Reclamation prepared a draft of the current TM
and sought review from a variety of sources. Reclamation employed a
Consultant Review Board (CRB) to conduct an independent technical peer
review of Reclamation's draft TM. To staff the CRB, Reclamation
contracted with two private sector corrosion engineers from CH2M Hill
and Schiff and Associates, as well as a materials scientist with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, a
contract was issued for two additional materials scientists with NIST
to serve as independent ``referees'' to evaluate the three reviewers'
conclusions. After incorporating the CRB's input, the updated draft TM
was sent out for Reclamation-wide review in May, 2004.
In July, 2004, Reclamation met with representatives of DIPRA to
discuss the Design Decision Model (DDM) for selection of a corrosion
control system on ductile iron pipe which DIPRA had developed in
concert with CORRPRO (a large corrosion control company). Reclamation's
process to evaluate the information in DIPRA's presentation was the
same process used to evaluate all other technical reports we reviewed
in preparation of the TM (i.e., Reclamation evaluated the technical
content of DIPRA's presentation, the thoroughness of the analyses
presented, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and finally, the
likely objectivity of the author(s)). The comments from the
Reclamation-wide review and DIPRA's input were incorporated, and the TM
was finalized later in July, 2004.
Reclamation has remained actively engaged in this issue since the
2004 TM was issued. We continue to monitor technical literature on this
subject and actively seek additional viewpoints from other
organizations. Through these efforts, we have discovered many other
organizations have concerns with the use of PE on ductile iron pipe.
These organizations include non-Federal water resource agencies and
other Federal agencies such as the Department of Transportation (DOT),
Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Reclamation continuously seeks
information on this issue by having its technical staff serve on
national technical society committees such as the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) Standards Committee A21 ``Ductile Iron Pipe'' and
the NACE International Task Group 014 ``Corrosion and Corrosion Control
for Cast-and Ductile-Iron Pipe.''
In the judgment and expertise of Reclamation, the technical
positions outlined in the TM are fundamentally sound and represent a
reasonable position in light of the available data, industry standards
and practice, and scientific understanding of the issues. The 2008-2009
National Academy of Science's (NAS) review of the TM concluded that
ductile iron pipe with PE and CP is not likely to provide a reliable
50-year service life in severely corrosive soils ( 2,000 ohm-cm) and
bonded dielectric coating with CP would be more effective. In reaching
this conclusion, the committee evaluated data from all sources,
including the DOT data provided by Reclamation and the data and
analysis provided and presented by DIPRA.
The NAS report confirms Reclamation's concern with the durability
of ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement and cathodic
protection installed in severely corrosive soils. Also, while the NAS
committee could not assure that Reclamation's recommended corrosion
protection system (bonded dielectric coating with cathodic protection)
would provide a reliable 50-year service life for ductile iron pipe
installed in these soils, the report does state that this system
substantially improves the chances of achieving this level of
reliability.
Reclamation agrees the collection of additional performance data
recommended by the NAS committee will be beneficial as the agency seeks
to refine its technical position in an updated TM. Reclamation has
awarded a Grant Agreement to collect and compile water pipeline field
performance data to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech). This agreement has a completion date of December 31,
2017.
During a July 2015 meeting between Reclamation, and representatives
from the ductile iron pipe industry, DIPRA proposed that Reclamation
change its corrosion prevention criteria for ductile iron pipe in soils
having resistivity values equal to or less than 2,000 ohm-cm from
bonded dielectric coating and cathodic protection, to a zinc
metallizing with enhanced polyethylene encasement (V-BIO) and cathodic
protection. Following the meeting, DIPRA provided several documents to
support their position that their proposal would perform well in
severely corrosive soils.
Reclamation's review of the submitted data focused on ascertaining
the data covering field performance of zinc coated ductile iron pipe in
severely corrosive soils. However, the majority of the supplied data
was in reference to the use of conventional polyethylene encasement to
protect ductile iron pipe in corrosive soils. Of the few documents
submitted in support of zinc coated pipe, the majority of them were
very old references published in the 1970s and 1980s that provided
limited performance data. Also, none of the documents addressed the
long-term performance of enhanced PE (V-BIO), and none addressed the
performance of the proposed combination of zinc metallizing, V- BIO,
and cathodic protection. Based on this review, Reclamation concluded
that while zinc or zinc with PE may provide some improvement over bare
pipe or pipe with PE wrap alone in some soils, there is no evidence
that this system will provide the same level of long term protection as
a bonded dielectric coating with cathodic protection in severely
corrosive soils.
The fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 114-113)
directed Reclamation to contract with one of the Department of Energy's
(DOE) national laboratories with expertise in materials and corrosion
disciplines to develop performance data for zinc-coated ductile iron
pipe applications in highly- or severely-corrosive soils. The
laboratory will also independently evaluate and recommend, based on the
performance data and any other relevant data or information the
laboratory may obtain, whether the material meets the corrosion
protection requirements in the TM. On May 11, 2016, Reclamation awarded
an Interagency Agreement to DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
perform this study.
Question. Is it Reclamation's position that data is not required
for a method of corrosion protection if there is a national or
international standard for that method of corrosion protection?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation uses national consensus standards to guide
its technical decisions where the use of those standards is
practicable. Where those standards do not exist, do not address
Reclamation's technical needs, or conflict, Reclamation develops its
own internal technical documents to guide the development of designs
for Reclamation designed and/or funded projects. It is Reclamation's
position that methods and practices contained in a national standard
have more weight than methods that are provided for information only
and specifically identified as not being a part of the national
standard.
--For example: The NACE International Standard Practice SP0169,
``Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Piping Systems,'' presents acknowledged practices for
the control of external corrosion on buried or submerged steel,
cast iron, ductile iron, copper, and aluminum piping systems.
Section 5.1.2.3 states: ``Pipeline external coating systems
shall be properly selected and applied to ensure that adequate
bonding is obtained. Unbonded coatings can create electrical
shielding of the pipeline that could jeopardize the
effectiveness of the CP system.'' (PE is an unbonded
coating.)The AWWA Standard C105 ``Polyethylene Encasement for
Ductile- Iron Pipe Systems'' is a material and installation
standard. Appendix A of that document provides a method to
determine if PE should be used for corrosion protection of
ductile iron pipe systems, butis specifically identified as not
a part of the ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 standard.
Question. Based upon significant concerns, Congress has included
directives to Reclamation for 5 years regarding its Technical
Memorandum. Among the concerns are that Reclamation is holding
different materials to different standards and increasing project
costs. In addition, Congress noted in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act Explanatory Statement for Energy and Water that
``[y]et another claim that Reclamation has always been in compliance
and no changes are necessary is not a satisfactory response.'' Please
provide the changes that Reclamation has made in the implementation of
the Technical Memorandum and in the treatment of different materials to
address these concerns.
Answer. The TM's corrosion control recommendations for both steel
and ductile iron pipe in severely corrosive soils are the same--bonded
dielectric coating with CP.
Reclamation uses the Technical Memorandum as a starting point for
its decisions relative to the corrosion protection of buried metallic
pipe, but it considers other factors and resources for its technical
decisions related to corrosion protection. Reclamation relies on site-
specific design data such as soil chemistry, national standards (e.g.
NACE SP0169 and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5), and engineering judgment to
guide decisions on the design of corrosion mitigation measures for
Reclamation's buried metallic pipelines. The appropriate usage of the
TM was reinforced by a February 24, 2010 memorandum from Reclamation's
Deputy Commissioner--Operations to Reclamation's Leadership Team.
To allow additional flexibility in the application of the TM,
Reclamation policy provides a process by which a deviation from design
criteria and engineering and technical standards can be vetted and
approved by the local Reclamation executive. This process, as it
relates specifically to requests to deviate from the corrosion
mitigation design criteria in the TM, was clarified by a March 13, 2015
memorandum from Reclamation's Deputy Commissioner--Operations to
Reclamation's Leadership Team.
Question. Please list any and all standards of evaluation
(viability, betterment, etc.) that Reclamation has used to evaluate the
various materials and methods of corrosion control in the Technical
Memorandum from 2003 until today. Please provide the year, standard and
type of material/corrosion protection.
Answer. Reclamation does not use a ``betterment'' standard for
corrosion control of buried metallic pipe. Reclamation has identified a
target performance level of zero external corrosion induced leaks/
ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken out of
service during the minimum service life (i.e. 50 years) for the
pipelines Reclamation designs and/or funds. Reclamation believes that
the target performance level is reasonable in light of the types of
pipelines that it typically constructs, but one which may not always be
achieved due to a variety of factors including unseen imperfections and
the number of variables involved with pipe installation in the field.
The materials used and the type of corrosion protection needed varies
depending on design parameters and soil conditions in the installation
area.
Question. Please provide any and all performance standards that
Reclamation has used to evaluate the various materials and methods of
corrosion control in the Technical Memorandum from 2003 until today.
Please provide the year, standard and type of material/corrosion
protection.
Answer. Reclamation has identified a target performance level of
zero external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would
require the pipeline to be taken out of service during the minimum
service life (i.e. 50 years) for the pipelines Reclamation designs and/
or funds. Reclamation believes that the target performance level is
reasonable in light of the types of pipelines that it typically
constructs, but one which may not always be achieved due to a variety
of factors including unseen imperfections and the number of variables
involved with pipe installation in the field. The materials used and
the type of corrosion protection needed varies depending on design
parameters and soil conditions in the installation area.
Question. Reclamation has acknowledged that some adjustment is
necessary for the performance figures for ``significant incidents'' for
oil and gas pipelines in soils of unknown corrosivity in the 2008
National Academies of Science report to provide a more accurate
comparison with ductile iron water pipe with polyethylene encasement in
highly corrosive soils. Please provide those adjustments and the basis
for those adjustments.
Answer. The noted text is taken from Section 4 of the 2009 NAS
Report which concluded that ductile iron pipe with PE and CP is not
likely to provide a reliable 50-year service life in severely corrosive
soils ( 2,000 ohm-cm) and a bonded dielectric coating with CP would be
more effective. At the start of the NAS Committee's deliberations, they
asked Reclamation to provide a quantitative benchmark against which
they could measure the performance of ductile iron pipe installed in
severely corrosive soils with PE and CP, in lieu of Reclamation's
stated target performance level of zero external corrosion induced
leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken
out of service during the minimum service life (i.e., 50 years).
Specifically they asked if Reclamation would accept a similar
failure rate for ductile iron pipe installed in severely corrosive
soils with PE and CP, as they would get from steel pipe installed in
severely corrosive soils with a bonded dielectric coating and CP.
Reclamation responded that this would be a reasonable benchmark which
led to the NAS Committee requesting information on Reclamation's
experience related to the performance (i.e., failure rates) of steel
pipe installed in severely corrosive soils, with a bonded dielectric
coating, and cathodic protection. In response to this question,
Reclamation conducted a review of available data on Reclamation's and
other organizations' pipelines.
During this review, Reclamation reached out to the U. S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety, to see if they had the
quantitative performance data requested by the Committee. Reclamation
acknowledges that this data was related to steel pipelines carrying
materials other than water, but believes the causes and rates of
external corrosion and protection against such corrosion are the same
regardless of the product being carried. Reclamation therefore
concluded that the DOT database was the best source of quantitative
data on this issue at that time.
Reclamation focused their review of the significant incidents
tracked in the database to those pipelines that most closely matched
the Committee's interest (i.e., coated steel pipe installed with
cathodic protection) and, like most of Reclamation's projects, were
transmission lines versus smaller distribution lines. Reclamation also
limited their review to significant incidents that were caused by
external corrosion. Focusing on this subset of data within DOT's
database, Reclamation was able to compute an average annual failure
rate for these pipelines of 0.0000444 failures per mile per year (based
on about 93,000 miles of installed steel pipe). Using the results of
this analysis, a 450-mile long steel pipeline installed with coating
and cathodic protection could be expected to experience one failure due
to external corrosion during the first 50 years of service.
The DOT database does not include information on the soil
conditions in which the pipelines are installed, so Reclamation was not
able to further screen the data to include only pipe installed in
severely corrosive soils. At that time, Reclamation noted that it was
not able to quantify the impact this issue would have on the calculated
performance data noted above, but some adjustment to the computed
failure rate may be warranted to compensate for this uncertainty in
soil conditions across the data set. However, as Reclamation also
noted, even with an adjustment to the computed failure rate, it
believed the analysis supported their original response to the
Committee's question of what Reclamation defines as reliably providing
a minimum service life of 50 years for our pipelines.
The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to
the grant agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile
water pipeline field performance data should provide more useful data.
Question. Please explain why Reclamation used the performance of
oil and gas pipelines in soils of unknown corrosivity as a proxy for
the performance of steel water pipe in highly corrosive soils in a life
cycle analysis when Reclamation had data regarding steel water
pipelines in highly corrosive soils at the time it used the oil and gas
data.
Answer. The life cycle analysis was conducted in August 2009 using
best available data at the time. As stated in Commissioner Connor's
letter to DIPRA dated January 29, 2010, ``Our analysis showed the
present worth of these additional capital costs for CP along with the
additional OM&R costs associated with long term operations of the CP
system was about 5 percent of the total project cost. Thus, the life
cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile iron pipeline with
polyethylene encasement was about 5 percent higher than the life cycle
cost for a similarly protected steel pipeline with a bonded dielectric
coating. A summary of these analyses is shown in Attachment 3.''
Referring to Attachment 3, Scenario 3 which removes pipe repair costs
from the analysis, the life cycle cost of a cathodically protected
ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement was calculated to be 4.7
percent higher than the life cycle cost for a similarly protected steel
pipe with a bonded dielectric coating. Reclamation's conclusion from
their life cycle analysis is independent of pipe repair costs.
The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to
the grant agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile
water pipeline field performance data will provide the foundation for
assessing life cycle costs on a broader basis.
Question. In the same life cycle analysis, Reclamation used the
failure of one ductile iron water pipeline in highly corrosive soils as
a proxy for the performance of ductile iron pipe in highly corrosive
soils when Reclamation had aggregate data regarding ductile iron
pipelines in highly corrosive soils. Why did Reclamation use the single
data point instead of the aggregate data?
Answer. The life cycle analysis was conducted in August 2009 using
best available data at the time. As stated in Commissioner Connor's
letter to DIPRA dated January 29, 2010, ``Our analysis showed the
present worth of these additional capital costs for CP along with the
additional OM&R costs associated with long term operations of the CP
system was about 5 percent of the total project cost. Thus, the life
cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile iron pipeline with
polyethylene encasement was about 5 percent higher than the life cycle
cost for a similarly protected steel pipeline with a bonded dielectric
coating. A summary of these analyses is shown in Attachment 3.''
Referring to Attachment 3, Scenario 3 which removes pipe repair costs
from the analysis, the life cycle cost of a cathodically protected
ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement was calculated to be 4.7
percent higher than the life cycle cost for a similarly protected steel
pipe with a bonded dielectric coating. Reclamation's conclusion from
their life cycle analysis is independent of pipe repair costs.
The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to
the grant agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile
water pipeline field performance data will provide the foundation for
assessing life cycle costs on a broader basis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Commissioner Lopez, I am concerned that Reclamation has
pumped less water in 2016 during this El Nino year than it did in 2015,
when California was in extreme drought. Flows were as high as 50,000
cubic feet per second in the Sacramento River, yet the agencies reduced
pumping to the low-end of the biological opinions because of one smelt.
I continue to hear that water pumping decisions are still being
based on when protected fish might be near the pumps rather than when
we know they actually are present. For example, Interior may reduce
pumping if even one smelt is found as far away as 17 miles from the
pumps near a monitoring station called Prisoner's Point.
But outside biologists and scientists believe that Reclamation is
reducing pumping prematurely. These experts believe that the agencies
could continue with higher pumping levels even if smelt are found at a
monitoring station that is only 12 miles from the pumps.
What are you doing to test whether or not smelt identified past the
Prisoner's Point monitoring station can still survive and make their
way back out to the central Delta?
Answer. Addressing this issue is challenging and would require
tagging and marking studies similar to those conducted on salmonids.
Until very recently, tags small enough to use in smelt have not been
available/tested. The use of such technology to evaluate the movements
of wild or other smelt in the Delta is needed, but as far as we are
aware is in the planning stages only.
Reclamation is participating in efforts to apply this technology to
the study of smelt movement and survival in the southern Delta.
Projects stemming from the following proposal are ongoing with some of
the work soon to be published in a leading journal:
Assessing Tagging-Related Mortality and Tag Retention in Adult
Delta smelt to Support Field Investigations in Clifton Court
Forebay and the Skinner Fish Facility (Grimaldo et al.--SFCWA
Research Grant Proposal)
Due to the threatened and endangered status of the salmonid species
in the Delta, most tagging/marking studies involving salmonids use
hatchery produced specimens and not wild fish. The Delta smelt
population is currently not augmented via hatchery-produced specimens.
In addition, the use of wild smelt for such studies would be
problematic due to the endangered status of the species and its
population levels, which are currently at an all-time low. Efforts to
identify individual wild fish by unique physical markings and
characters are ongoing and may have applicability to Delta smelt in the
future.
Question. If you aren't doing this monitoring, can you start doing
it with some of the $100 million in drought funding from December's
Omnibus appropriations bill?
Answer. If the monitoring work is conducted during fiscal year
2017, current drought funding could be used to fund studies focused on
developing and applying methods to determine smelt movements and
survival in the southern Delta. Efforts are being made in this area.
Question. What is the Bureau of Reclamation doing to address other
threats to smelt, such as ammonia from sewage discharges and predation
by other species?
Answer. Since 2010, Reclamation funded studies that address ammonia
loading and its potential effects on Delta smelt and the Delta
ecosystem. There is no evidence of acute ammonia toxicity to Delta
smelt or any other fish in the Delta. Some studies indicate the
possibility of chronic effects in larval Delta smelt and their copepod
prey when exposed to high concentrations under laboratory conditions.
Some earlier research suggested that ammonium may inhibit diatom
production in Suisun Bay under certain combinations, but recent does
not support this hypothesis. Ammonium, may degrade delta smelt habitat
by favoring Microcystis, a potentially toxic form of phytoplankton. The
Sacramento regional wastewater treatment facility, one of the sources
of ammonium loading to the Delta, is upgrading its plant to advanced
tertiary treatment methods and completion is expected by 2020. This
action will eliminate almost all of its contribution to Delta ammonium
loading.
Predation is a common natural interaction within ecologic
communities and occurs at some level for a multitude of fish species.
Reclamation continues to support research related to predation,
including several specifically focused on predation of Delta smelt.
Question. How is the Bureau of Reclamation working with other
Federal agencies, like National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and
implement system-wide capabilities to monitor and track fish migrations
into and out of the Delta?
Answer. Reclamation has and continues to provide funding to NOAA
Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to monitor and track
ESA-listed fish species, both in and out of the Delta. Reclamation
continues to work with a consortium of multiple agencies (including
NOAA Fisheries and FWS) within the framework of the Interagency
Ecological Program and beyond to monitor and track fish in the Delta.
Over twenty separate monitoring activities within this program occur
year-round, but with increased effort from fall through early summer.
Beyond their ongoing tracking, Reclamation has provided FWS with
$3.8 million this year to fund additional studies, including whether
the viability measuring point can be moved from the current 17 mile
marker at ``Prisoner's Point.'' This study will take several years. To
date, however, FWS maintains the measuring point at ``Prisoner's
Point.''
Additionally, Reclamation's Tracy Fish Collection Facility has one
of the most extensive long- term monitoring programs within the Delta,
sampling every 2 hours on a continual basis. Monitoring and sampling
activities include fish (covering the full range of life stages), water
quality parameters and genetic material.
Question. How is the Bureau of Reclamation working with other
Federal agencies, like NOAA Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service, to
research and evaluate the impacts of Delta operations on fish behavior
and potential mortality?
Answer. Reclamation continues to work with a consortium of multiple
agencies (including NOAA Fisheries and FWS) within the framework of the
Interagency Ecological Program (IEP). The IEP provides relevant and
timely ecological information for management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem
and the water that flows through it. Priorities within the program
include:
--Improving the understanding of abundance, distribution, life
history diversity, and life stage requirements of Delta smelt,
longfin smelt, salmonids, steelhead and green sturgeon to
inform management decisions.
--Improving smelt, salmonid and sturgeon real-time monitoring,
indirect mortality, and entrainment prediction tools to reduce
take and increase operational flexibility of the State and
Federal water project pumps.
--Improving chinook and steelhead viability in the Delta with an
initial emphasis on south Delta salmon survival through studies
and modeling.
--Understanding the factors impairing water beneficial uses to inform
management decisions.
Reclamation has supported a number of studies on juvenile salmonid
survival in relation to Delta operations. These studies include:
--A 6 year fish tracking and monitoring study of San Joaquin
steelhead survival (called for in NOAA Fisheries biological
opinion).
--Fish tracking and monitoring studies of juvenile Chinook movement
in relation to Delta Cross Channel operations (with FWS and the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)).
--Physical and non-physical barrier studies at Head of Old River and
Georgiana Slough (with the California Department of Water
Resources and USGS).
--Chinook salmon survival studies based on coded wire tag recoveries
(with FWS).
The majority of projects are coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and
FWS with multiple project work teams (Chinook salmon, smelt, sturgeon,
steelhead, delta rearing, Sacramento River monitoring, hatchery, and
collaborative adaptive management team) and the Delta Operations groups
continuously seeking ways to understand fish behavior, mortality and to
improve survival.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Commissioner Lopez, farmers in the Odessa Subarea of the
Columbia Basin Project have faced significant challenges for several
years as groundwater from the aquifer has been declining. This rapid
decline has put agriculture production and commercial, municipal, and
industrial water uses at risk. According to a study conducted by
Washington State University, $840 million and 3,600 jobs are at risk if
agriculture producers in the Odessa Subarea no longer have access to
groundwater from the aquifer and no alternative water solution is in
place.
I appreciate your ongoing work with the State of Washington and the
three impacted irrigation districts to prevent further depletion of the
Odessa Subarea aquifer and deliver much needed surface water to
agricultural lands within the Columbia Basin Project. Renewing the
Master Water Service Contract with the East Columbia Basin Irrigation
District (ECBID) last year was a significant milestone in this process.
This will ensure ECBID can move forward with the development of the
first of seven planned pressurized delivery systems to provide surface
water to 87,700 acres of the Odessa Subarea in the Columbia Basin
Project.
I understand that additional amendments to the Water Service
Contract are needed for 70,000 acres within the Odessa Subarea. What is
the current status of this amendment and when do you expect it to be
completed?
Answer. Work on the amendment to the Master Water Service contract
is in progress. Evaluation of the existing annual water service rate
and completion of the rate-setting process are underway. Reclamation
completed a draft payment capacity study in March 2016 and received
comments from the irrigation districts in May 2016. Reclamation is
reviewing the districts' comments and finalizing this study, which is
needed to complete an ability to pay study. Reclamation has several
other actions to complete as part of this process, including
environmental compliance, reviewing land eligibility, completing a
basis of negotiation, preparing the contract amendment, and negotiating
the contract with ECBID. Additionally, Reclamation is required to
provide a 60-day public notice prior to contract execution. We expect
this process to be complete by the end of calendar year 2016.
Question. Are you aware of any challenges that may delay completion
of this work?
Answer. We do not expect any delays. Unanticipated factors,
including litigation or a significant change request from ECBID could
delay completion of the process. The requirement for a 60-day public
notice prior to contract execution was factored in to the completion
date noted in the previous question.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. Thank you for being here today.
The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good work.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]