    [Senate Hearing 114-198]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-198

                       THE IMPORTANCE OF ENACTING A NEW
                        WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                  BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 10, 2016

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-407 PDF                     WASHNGTON : 2016

    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              BARBARA BOXER, California
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska

                     Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
                   Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               FEBRUARY 10, 2016
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     1
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     4
    Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana,
      prepared statement.............................................    50

                                   WITNESSES

    Portiss, Bob, Port Director, Tulsa Port of Catoosa...............     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Swearingen, John, Senior Vice President, Marathon Petroleum
      Corporation....................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Roberson, Rob, Director of Corporate Logistics, Nucor Corporation    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Mattei, Norma Jean, President-Elect, American Society of Civil
      Engineers......................................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Makarios, Kyle, Director of Government Affairs, North Central
      States Regional Council of Carpenters..........................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    33

        THE IMPORTANCE OF ENACTING A NEW WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo,
    Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey.

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

        Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
        Today's hearing is on the importance of enacting a Water
    Resources Development Act.
        This is kind of interesting, because historically we have
    always wanted to have one every 2 years. So 2 years ago we had
    one, but before that it was 7 years. So this is significant. We
    are going to be highlighting the importance of rebuilding
    America's crumbling infrastructure and the national economic
    benefits that this infrastructure supports.
        The U.S. marine transportation industry supports $2
    trillion in commerce and creates jobs for over 13 million
    people. Forty States are directly served by Corps ports and
    waterways. The annual economic benefit to our Nation from our
    investments in Corps projects averages about $110 billion a
    year. That means for every dollar we invest, we get $16 in
    benefits.
        If we, as a country, ignore the problems facing our
    waterway and our port and our flood control infrastructure,
    those benefits and jobs will be at risk. That is why it is so
    important for Congress to enact our Water Resources Development
    Act every 2 years.
        You see, it is kind of our best kept secret, Senator Boxer.
    We are the Nation's most eminent port, and a lot of people
    don't know that.
        Senator Boxer. That is amazing.
        Senator Inhofe. If there was time, I would tell you the
    story that goes with it. And the guy we are looking at here,
    one of our witnesses, Bob Portiss, I have known him probably
    since he was in college, I guess.
        Anyway, thanks to Oklahoma's ports and robust lakes, we
    also have more miles of freshwater shoreline in the State of
    Oklahoma than any of the 50 States. Did you know that?
        Senator Boxer. Is there a test after this?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
    Navigation System is one of those waterways that the Corps
    manages. It is 445 miles long and spans Arkansas, eastern
    Oklahoma. The Port of Muskogee and the Tulsa Port of Catoosa
    are home to over 70 companies and industries employing more
    than 6,500 Oklahomans, creating an overall economic impact of
    more than $400 million to my State each year. Bob Portiss can
    testify to that impact firsthand. We have had the opportunity
    to work with the Port of Catoosa and its economic development
    for years.
        However, the impact of the waterway is not limited to just
    Oklahoma and Arkansas. While Oklahoma ports are the furthest
    inland of any other port in the United States, our ports export
    products from other States, as close as Kansas and as far away
    as Idaho, which then travel to other ports around the United
    States and the world.
        Markets outside the United States represent 73 percent of
    the world's purchasing power, 87 percent of its economic
    growth, and 95 percent of its consumers. To be competitive, the
    United States must make infrastructure investment part of its
    growth strategy.
        We are also faced with aging reservoirs that provide our
    communities with water and protect them during flood events. In
    the past year, my State has experienced two significant rain
    events, and it is because of our existing infrastructure that
    we did not suffer more damage than we did. I remember going in
    a helicopter, seeing how they are containing just the right
    amount, and did a masterful job, you guys did in the State,
    Bob.
        Thanks to the projects of both the Arkansas River and the
    Red River Basin, more than $500 million in damages were
    prevented in Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana
    after historic rainfall this past spring. Overall, the Corps'
    Southwest Division calculated that our water resources project
    saved our communities $13 billion in damages in the south
    central and southwest areas of the United States.
        This committee can't singlehandedly direct more funds to
    our water resources, but we can create policies that foster
    more cooperation between those that maintain the infrastructure
    and those that depend on the infrastructure. What we are saying
    here is we are not an appropriation committee; we are an
    authorization committee.
        We created some of these policies in WRRDA 2014, but we
    need to do more by fostering partnerships between Federal,
    State, local, and private interests. We can unleash an
    investment in public infrastructure, and in doing so allow
    American businesses to remain competitive with global
    competitors.
        Both Senator Boxer and I have made passing the WRDA bill in
    2016 a top priority. With passage of the FAST Act, our
    transportation bill, our committee has proven that we are able
    to work together in a bipartisan level to develop legislation.
    Senator Boxer and I have a long history of working together and
    have proven that when we share the common goal we are able to
    work together to accomplish it. That is why I am confident that
    we will be able to move a bill through the committee this
    spring and pass a WRDA bill for 2016.
        Senator Boxer.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

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

        Today's hearing on the importance of enacting a Water
    Resources Development Act or WRDA will highlight the importance
    of rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure and the
    national economic benefits that this infrastructure supports.
        The U.S. marine transportation industry supports $2
    trillion in commerce and creates jobs for over 13 million
    people. Forty States are directly served by Corps ports and
    waterways. The annual economic benefits to our Nation from our
    investments in Corps projects average about $110 billion a
    year. That means for every dollar we invest, we get $16.60 in
    benefits. If we as a country ignore the problems facing our
    waterway, port, and flood control infrastructure, those
    benefits and jobs will be at risk. That is why it is so
    important for Congress to enact a Water Resources Development
    Act every 2 years.
        Thanks to Oklahoma's ports and our robust lake and flood
    control systems, I am very familiar with the importance of our
    Nation's waterways and water resources infrastructure.
        The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System
    (MKARNS) is one of those waterways that the Corps manages. It
    is 445 miles long and spans Arkansas and the eastern part of
    Oklahoma. The Port of Muskogee and the Tulsa Port of Catoosa
    are home to over 70 companies and industries employing more
    than 6,500 Oklahomans, creating an overall economic impact of
    more than $400 million to my State each year. Bob Portiss can
    testify to that impact first hand. We have had the opportunity
    to work with the Port of Catoosa and economic development for
    years.
        However, the impact of the MKARNS is not limited to just
    Oklahoma and Arkansas. While Oklahoma ports are the furthest
    inland of any other port in the U.S., our ports export products
    from other States as close as Kansas and as far as Idaho, which
    then travel to other ports around the U.S. and the world.
        Markets outside the United States represent 73 percent of
    the world's purchasing power, 87 percent of its economic
    growth, and 95 percent of its consumers. To be competitive, the
    United States must make infrastructure investment part of its
    growth strategy.
        We are also faced with aging reservoirs that provide our
    communities with water and protect them during flood events.
        In Oklahoma we have more miles of freshwater shoreline than
    any other State, with 200 manmade lakes. In the past year my
    State has experienced two significant rain events, and it is
    because of our existing infrastructure that we did not suffer
    more than damage than we did.
        Thanks to the projects in both the Arkansas River and Red
    River Basins, more than $500 million in damages were prevented
    in Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana after
    historic rainfall this past spring. Overall, the Corps'
    Southwest Division calculated that our water resources projects
    saved our communities $13.3 billion in damages in the south
    central and southwest areas of the U.S.
        This committee can't single-handedly direct more funds to
    our water resources. But we can create policies that foster
    more cooperation between those that maintain the infrastructure
    and those that depend on the infrastructure.
        We created some of these policies in WRRDA 2014, but we
    need to do more. By fostering partnerships between Federal,
    State, local, and private interests, we can unleash an
    investment in public infrastructure, and in doing so allow
    American businesses to remain competitive with global
    competitors.
        Both Senator Boxer and I have made passing a WRDA in 2016 a
    top priority. With passage of the FAST Act, our committee has
    proven that we are able to work together on a bi-partisan level
    to develop legislation. Senator Boxer and I have a long history
    of working together and have proven that when we share a common
    goal we are able to work together to accomplish it. That is why
    I am confident that we will move a bill through committee this
    spring and pass a WRDA in 2016.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank
    them for their testimony.

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

        Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, we are going
    to do this, and I am so excited to be working on WRDA with you
    again. We show the entire Senate that this committee can come
    together on infrastructure. We know there are other issues
    where it is just Venus and Mars, and that is the way it is. So,
    for me, I want to focus on this.
        Every time we had a hearing on the environment, I leaned
    over and said, when we are getting to WRDA? And I couldn't be
    more pleased. And I think you teach us a lot about your State
    and how much it relies on this type of program, and how this
    type of program that we do in WRDA delivers sound economic
    growth and good jobs. It involves the movement of goods, it
    makes sure that we can deliver clean water, and that is what I
    want to really stress in my remarks, because the drinking water
    emergency in Flint, Michigan puts a spotlight on our national
    infrastructure challenges.
        This is a great Nation, but a lot of our infrastructure is
    getting old. And we all know, most of us who own our own homes,
    as an example, or we own our cars, for an example, you can't
    just let it go; you have to stay on top of it, you have to
    maintain it. And in the case of water, the health and safety of
    children and families depend on safe drinking water.
        So as we develop our new WRDA, I am hopeful we can work
    together, and I know we will, to address the need to invest in
    our aging infrastructure. The lead poisoning of kids in Flint
    highlights the need for a modern infrastructure system that
    will keep our families safe from toxins such as lead in their
    drinking water. There is no safe level of lead in children. The
    effects of lead are generally irreversible, and it harms the
    brains and nervous system of children and developing fetuses.
        The American people have a right to expect us to make sure
    that their water is safe when they turn on their faucets, and
    it is truly a State and national priority and local priority.
    It is something we have to all work together on. But millions
    of homes across America receive water from pipes that date to
    an era before scientists knew the harm caused by lead exposure.
    And some major cities--including, I am sure, some of our
    cities--installed drinking water pipes more than 100 years ago.
    So, ipso facto, they are a potential crisis waiting to happen.
        In a recent New York Times, Eric Olsen--some of you may
    remember he was my former staffer here--said, ``You think our
    roads and bridges aren't being fixed? The stuff underground is
    totally ignored. We are mostly living off the investment of our
    parents and grandparents for our drinking water.'' And that
    article was printed in the New York Times, actually, yesterday.
        Aging pipes, that is a nationwide problem, Mr. Chairman. As
    the Detroit Free Press recently reported. Listen to this: About
    10 million American homes and buildings receive water from
    service lines that are at least partially lead, according to
    the EPA. And the American Society of Civil Engineers gives our
    Nation's drinking water infrastructure a D. Now, we are going
    to hear this today; a D. And I hesitate to put this number out
    there because it is so big it is frightening, but they say the
    aggregate investment that we need over time is $1.7 trillion,
    by 2050. So we have some years, but that is a number we have to
    grapple with.
        The next WRDA bill gives us a chance to address our aging
    drinking water infrastructure, and I believe the next bill
    should enable communities to identify the infrastructure that
    poses a threat to public health. And we can use existing
    programs, Mr. Chairman; we don't need new programs. We could
    use the State Revolving Fund and WIFIA, which you and I
    created, to target investment where it is needed most. And
    according to your staff, Alex told me yesterday that the
    leverage of that WIFIA Fund is 60 to 1. That is incredible.
        Senator Inhofe. That is right, as opposed to 10 to 1 for
    TIFIA.
        Senator Boxer. I think it is 30 to 1 in TIFIA.
        Senator Inhofe. Is it?
        Senator Boxer. I do. But it is much greater. So we have a
    chance to do this.
        I just want to touch on a couple of other things. I will
    put my whole statement in the record, if you don't mind. But I
    do want to close just talking about a couple of issues in my
    State that I am going to work hard to address. And it just
    doesn't affect one State like mine.
        The drought is very serious. We have been so fortunate to
    have some really heavy snowfall, and all of a sudden it has
    turned dry and hot. My son was telling me yesterday, in
    Oakland, where it is usually really chilly at this time, it was
    81 degrees. So we are facing changes in the climate. And
    without getting into an argument over why or how, it doesn't
    matter, it is here, so we need to do something.
        So I am talking to my chairman about looking at Desal,
    recycling, things that we really should encourage. I met with
    my Republican mayor of San Diego yesterday, whom I love, and he
    is pushing hard on Desal. They actually have a plant, I am
    going to go see it. It is working. It is expensive. We need to
    help them get the costs down.
        I also think that we have to look at special bodies of
    water that are in trouble. The Salton Sea in California is an
    extraordinary iconic sea that had its heyday in the 1950s, and
    now, with the drought, it is in decline. And I won't go into it
    here because I don't want to take our time, except to say I
    will be working with colleagues to see if we can address the
    critical infrastructure needs, look at these water bodies that
    are in crisis, and work to create jobs that support commerce
    and protect public safety.
        Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to work with you on WRDA.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received
    at time of print.]
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        We will go ahead and start with Bob Portiss and just work
    our way down, and if you will submit to questions, we will look
    forward to it.
        Bob Portiss. Let me introduce what he does. He runs our
    port there, the Port of Catoosa. For how many years now, Bob?
        Mr. Portiss. About a hundred.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. That is right. And I've been with you since
    the very beginning.
        All right.

     STATEMENT OF BOB PORTISS, PORT DIRECTOR, TULSA PORT OF CATOOSA

        Mr. Portiss. Again, my name is Bob Portiss, and I have been
    affiliated with the Tulsa Port of Catoosa since 1973 and as its
    Port Director since July 1, 1984. Our port is located at the
    Head of Navigation for the 445-mile-long McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System, located 15 miles from
    downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is both an honor and privilege for
    me to appear before you today, especially since my long-time
    friend and our senior Senator is chairman. Senator Inhofe's
    numerous contributions to our industry and our port began in
    1978, when he began his 6-year term as mayor of Tulsa.
        Prior to passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946,
    which authorized construction of our waterway, Congress made it
    clear that before Federal moneys were invested in the new
    waterway the principal cities located along it would need to
    commit to develop a port to insure that business and industry
    would have access to barge transportation.
        Tulsa fulfilled this commitment by acquiring its current
    2,500 acres of contiguous land and developing it into one of
    our Nation's largest inland ports with its current complement,
    as Senator Inhofe mentioned, of 72 industrial facilities that,
    as of a year ago, employed 4,200 people and whose annual
    waterborne commerce averaged 2.5 million tons. Congress, in
    turn, agreed to construct and maintain our waterway with its 18
    locks and dams to provide a minimum depth of 9 feet.
        This partnership worked well until a few years ago when the
    backlog of maintenance reached an unprecedented $170 million,
    $70 million of which is now deemed critical by the Corps. As
    this backlog continues to increase so will the probability of
    lengthy failures. Recognizing this, we worked to include a
    provision in WRRDA 2014 that would allow us to partner with the
    Corps to help address such failures.
        That provision, specifically, is section 1024, which
    authorizes the Secretary of the Army to accept materials and
    services from us to be used to repair and restore projects that
    were damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency.
    Implementation guidance, however, has not yet been released for
    this section.
        We are now very concerned because we understand that when
    the implementation guidance for this section is issued, it will
    be limited to emergencies resulting from a natural disaster.
        The Corps has stated that they embrace the intent of
    section 1024, but have not found ways to overcome the legal
    constraints of the rules and regulations they must follow. In
    order to carry out section 1024 as intended, we believe that
    WRDA 2016 presents an opportunity for you to address any
    concerns that the Corps might have. In that regard, we would
    urge you to modify section 1024 of WRRDA 2014 to confirm that
    an emergency is not limited to natural disasters but includes
    failures resulting from a lack of maintenance. We would further
    recommend that authority to implement this provision be
    delegated to the district commanders to ensure prompt action.
        Our Nation's 25,000 miles of inland waterways handle over
    600 million tons of cargo annually, at a cost typically $11
    cheaper than other modes. This amounts to an average annual
    savings of $7 billion for our economy.
        As to the impact on the central portion of our Nation, over
    20 million bushels of grain from Kansas and Oklahoma wheat are
    shipped on our waterway annually to the Gulf of Mexico at a
    cost of about the same price as the price of a first-class
    postage stamp. Corresponding savings are realized for other
    commodities including project cargo that typically saves our
    shippers as much as $100,000 per load. Last, but not least,
    more than 8,000 direct maritime jobs have been created along
    the McClellan-Kerr between Muskogee and Tulsa, Oklahoma, as a
    result of some $5 billion of industrial investments. All of
    this is now at risk if we do not adequately maintain our
    waterway, something that we are ready and willing to help with.
        One important answer to the critical needs of our Nation's
    waterway system is to make sure the Congress passes a WRDA bill
    in 2016 and every 2 years thereafter. The Congress made that
    commitment in WRRDA 2014, and we are very appreciative of this
    committee's leadership and commitment in working to develop a
    WRDA this year to ensure the reliability of the system and to
    build upon the reforms adopted in WRRDA 2014.
        I also recognize that adequate funding needed to maintain
    our water resources infrastructure will continue to be a
    challenge. The Congress recognized this in WRRDA 2014 through
    several provisions that allowed for alternative funding
    mechanisms, including a public-private partnership model. WRDA
    2016 presents an opportunity to further enhance and improve
    those provisions, which would enable us to overcome the current
    critical backlog that will ensure the reliability and
    sustainability of the MKARNS, and therefore our maritime ports.
    Given our ability to successfully work with our Corps Districts
    and Division, the partnership we have developed along our
    waterway may well serve as a model that can be looked upon
    nationwide.
        I really appreciate and am honored to have this
    opportunity. Thank you very much, and I look forward to working
    with you as you develop a WRDA 2016.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Portiss follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Portiss.
        John Swearingen is the Senior Vice President of Marathon
    Petroleum Corporation.
        Mr. Swearingen.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN SWEARINGEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MARATHON
                         PETROLEUM CORPORATION

        Mr. Swearingen. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking
    Member Boxer, and members of the Committee. My name is John
    Swearingen, and I am the Senior Vice President of
    Transportation and Logistics at Marathon Petroleum. Thank you
    for the opportunity to share our story about the importance of
    a strong 21st century energy transportation system.
        Such infrastructure plays a critical role in our company's
    ability to continue to safely deliver affordable petroleum
    products to American consumers. Marathon Petroleum is
    headquartered in Findlay, Ohio, and with our seven plant
    refining network, we are the Nation's fourth largest
    transportation fuel manufacturer. We are also one of the
    largest marketers and transporters of petroleum products in the
    U.S.
        A key part of our business is our inland river fleet, which
    is one of the largest private domestic fleets of inland
    petroleum product barges in the U.S. Our fleet consists of 219
    inland waterway towboats and barges that we wholly own,
    accompanied by another 22 towboats and barges which are leased.
    We also have another 30 boats and 100 barges under contract
    with third parties.
        Our fleet carries products primarily on the Ohio River
    between Pittsburgh and Paducah, Kentucky. Other movements are
    also regularly scheduled on the Mississippi, Illinois,
    Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, Tennessee and Cumberland
    Rivers. All of these river systems have locks and dams built
    and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We also own
    distribution storage facilities throughout the South and
    Midwest, which are also accessed via water.
        Just recently, the U.S. became the No. 1 producer of oil
    and natural gas, and we are a net exporter of refined products.
    This has made energy more affordable and our country more
    energy secure. In order for Americans to fully realize the
    benefit of this abundant and affordable energy, investments in
    energy transportation infrastructure are absolutely critical.
        Moving commodities by barge and tanker is extremely
    efficient. For example, moving the amount of liquid volume on
    just five 8-barge towboats is equivalent to moving the same
    volume over the road with 5,000 semi-tractor trailers. However,
    inadequate investment can minimize these efficiencies and
    result in bottlenecks in commerce.
        Unscheduled and unplanned lock outages, like those we have
    experienced on the Ohio River over the past decade, are
    extremely disruptive and lead to increased cost of everyday
    products, commodities, and raw materials for the end consumer.
    Nearly 40 percent of all domestic waterborne trade is crude oil
    or petroleum products, and 40 percent of the crude oil arriving
    at refineries is being shipped via water. Therefore, the longer
    it takes for a shipment to arrive due to backlogs at locks and
    dams, the more expensive petroleum products will become.
        It is well known the Army Corps of Engineers has billions
    of dollars of deferred maintenance activities due to
    insufficient funding. These maintenance projects are critical
    to our industry's operation. Today we functionally have a fix-
    as-fail posture when it comes to our inland waterway
    infrastructure. We cannot afford to move toward a fail-to-fix
    posture.
        Congress has already taken a number of positive steps
    forward in the long road toward recovery. The 2014 WRDA bill
    established a framework for authorizing full distribution of
    the revenues paid by the inland towing industry into the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund. We appreciate that Congress included
    this provision and appropriated the authorized amounts last
    year. We now encourage Congress to maintain the WRDA authorized
    distribution levels and to appropriate the authorized amount of
    71 percent of Trust Fund revenues expected for fiscal year
    2017.
        We also encourage Congress to appropriate the $3.1 billion
    in the operations and maintenance account for the Army Corps of
    Engineers and further appropriate the full use of the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund, which is based on a 29 cents per gallon
    user fee assessed on vessels operating on the inland system.
        Last, there is currently a near final feasibility study for
    the Pittsburgh area to modernize Emsworth, Dashields, and
    Montgomery Locks and Dams. This study has been under
    development for more than 12 years and has cost more than $17
    million. We strongly encourage the committee to authorize the
    Upper Ohio River Navigation Study in the 2016 WRDA bill.
        Marathon Petroleum Corporation stands ready to work with
    the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as well as
    other committees of jurisdiction and appropriators. We are a
    willing partner in the effort to build and maintain a 21st
    century energy infrastructure network. The American public
    deserves no less. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Swearingen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Swearingen.
        Rob Roberson is the Director of Corporate Logistics at
    Nucor Corporation.
        Mr. Roberson.

      STATEMENT OF ROB ROBERSON, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE LOGISTICS,
                           NUCOR CORPORATION

        Mr. Roberson. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking
    Member Boxer. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    As the Chairman said, I am Rob Roberson, Director of Corporate
    Logistics for Nucor Corporation.
        Nucor is the Nation's largest steel manufacturer and
    recycler, with the capacity to produce almost 29 million tons
    of steel annually. Last year, the company recycled nearly 17
    million tons of scrap steel and turned it into new steel that
    is used in construction, automotive, and energy applications,
    just to name a few. We are a company of over 23,000 teammates,
    located primarily in the U.S. and Canada.
        Inland waterways and ports are an essential part of our
    Nation's transportation system and economy, creating jobs and
    revenue regionally and nationally. As a company that relies on
    just-in-time delivery of products to our customers, an
    efficient transportation infrastructure is vitally important.
    Waterway infrastructure is not only important for moving
    finished steel products to market, but also for bringing raw
    materials to our steel mills. We have several steel mills
    located on rivers which bring in more than 90 percent of their
    raw materials by water. Nucor's scrap steel business, The David
    J. Joseph Company, transports approximately 3,500 barges per
    year. Barges provide a safe, efficient, environmentally
    friendly and cost-effective way to move goods.
        In order for the U.S. to remain economically competitive,
    we must continue to invest in our ports and inland waterways.
    Every barge we utilize can move up to 1,700 net tons of raw
    material or product. This is the equivalent of 17 railcars, or
    almost 80 trucks. When we fail to adequately maintain our ports
    and inland waterways, companies like ours are forced to use
    more costly and less efficient shipping alternatives, which
    threatens our ability to deliver goods to our customers in a
    cost-effective manner, a key competitive strength of our
    company for almost 50 years.
        A well-functioning inland waterways and port system also
    gives Nucor access to an effective distribution channel to
    fight against surging steel imports that have crippled much of
    the domestic steel industry.
        The American steel industry is in crisis. A glut of global
    steel production has led to the dumping of steel into the U.S.
    market at historic levels and in violation of international
    trade rules. Despite the highest level of domestic steel
    consumption since 2006, less efficient foreign producers are
    benefiting, not domestic producers. Due to unfairly traded
    imports, the American steel industry's capacity utilization in
    2015 was less than 70 percent, and pricing for most steel
    products collapsed.
        To help fight the import surge and to better serve the
    needs of our customers, Nucor is expanding our capabilities to
    produce higher quality offerings. We recently invested $100
    million to modernize our South Carolina mill in order to
    produce wider and lighter sheet steel for the automotive
    industry. The ability to use our ports and our waterways as a
    means to provide the most competitive freight solution to the
    market gives us an advantage over our foreign competitors.
        For these reasons, we appreciate the action Congress took
    in 2014 passing the Water Resources and Reform Development Act,
    and we are pleased Congress is getting an early start on the
    next WRDA reauthorization.
        The 2014 legislation made many important changes to the way
    water infrastructure projects are approved and funded. That
    bill helped streamline project approval by removing redundant
    studies and expediting permits. It also recognized the
    importance of funding for harbor maintenance and the dredging
    of inland waterways. We were pleased that the legislation also
    encouraged the use of resilient construction techniques and
    materials. The 2016 reauthorization can build on these changes
    and address several issues that have emerged since the last
    WRDA bill was passed.
        The last WRDA legislation included Buy America provisions
    in the newly created WIFIA program and permanently applied Buy
    America to the EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund projects.
    We would like to see these provisions permanently applied to
    the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund in the upcoming
    reauthorization. We believe that it is good policy to apply Buy
    America preferences to taxpayer-funded programs, particularly
    those administered by the EPA, which heavily regulates domestic
    industries. This will help stimulate job growth in the iron and
    steel industries and encourage research and development and
    capital investment here at home.
        Regular investment will ensure our waterway infrastructure
    remains competitive and our economy will continue to grow, and
    we appreciate the work this committee will undertake to
    reauthorize WRDA. We also encourage appropriators to follow
    through with funding to ensure that the merits of WRDA 2016 are
    fully achieved.
        Since 2009, Nucor has invested over $6 billion in our U.S.
    facilities because we believe so strongly in the American
    economy and American workers. We want to continue investing
    here in America. We need Congress' help to ensure a competitive
    environment here at home that allows domestic steel producers
    to realize the benefits of a growing U.S. economy.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Roberson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Roberson.
        Norma Jean Mattei is President-Elect of American Society of
    Civil Engineers.
        Dr. Mattei.

       STATEMENT OF NORMA JEAN MATTEI, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN
                       SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

        Ms. Mattei. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
    Boxer, committee members and staff. Thank you for this
    invitation. My name is Norma Jean Mattei, and I am a
    professional engineer in the State of Louisiana, I am Professor
    of Civil Engineering at the University of New Orleans; I am a
    member of the Mississippi River Commission. But I am here today
    as President-Elect of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
        The American Society of Civil Engineers has over 150,000
    civil engineers globally. We are well known, as Senator Boxer
    mentioned, for our report card. This is our 2013 report card on
    America's infrastructure. It is a comprehensive document that
    takes a look at assessing 16 sectors of infrastructure across
    the Nation. We are about to work on our 2017 report card, just
    as you are working on WRDA 2016, and we are hoping that this
    important work that you do will raise the grades, because let
    me tell you about the grades.
        Our 2013 report card gave a grade overall to our
    infrastructure of D+. When you look at levees, a D^; inland
    waterways D^; dams a D; drinking water a D; wastewater a D;
    ports a C.
        [Laughter.]
        Those grades really aren't that good, are they? So,
    frankly, I am going to steal a line from a fellow professor and
    GM of D.C. Water: ``We sometimes give people Ds because it is
    just too hard to flunk them.''
        If we don't invest in our infrastructure, the U.S. risks
    losing competitiveness, we risk losing jobs; it costs our
    Government and it cost the American family. In our Failure to
    Act economic report we assess long-term economic impacts of not
    properly investing in our infrastructure. The report concludes
    that our Nation's deteriorating ports and inland waterways
    infrastructure will cost the American economy more than 800,000
    jobs and suppress the growth of our GDP by a little less than
    $7 billion in 2020.
        But we know that flood control projects, as an example,
    have a return on investment of between 4 and 20, and sometimes
    more, times their cost. It's not only a good return on
    investment; it is simply good fiscal responsive policy.
        WRDA bills are powerful; they are important. More than 20
    years ago, Congress authorized the National Dam Safety Program.
    WRRDA 14 reauthorized that program, and it also created a new
    national levee safety initiative. Let's talk about the dams.
        We now know that we have an inventory nationally of over
    87,000 dams. We assess their condition. We know how they are
    doing; we know their age. Their average age is about 54 years.
    That is about as old as me. And some of them are older than me.
    We now provide training to State dam safety programs.
        With increasing population and greater development below
    those dams, we continued to see the numbers of high hazard dams
    increase to nearly 14,000 in 2012. The deficient dams number
    about 4,000, and unfortunately, 2,000 of those are high hazard
    also.
        I couldn't tell these numbers to you, we wouldn't know them
    but for WRDA. So an authorization is very, very important to
    public safety programs.
        Unfortunately, the levee side of the story is very
    different. While the dam safety program has been 20 years old,
    it wasn't until 2014 that Congress authorized the first program
    to inventory levees. The sad truth is we have not invested a
    single dollar into that program. So levees and dams, we don't
    really want to see those things fail. We use them every day,
    but the public does not really see the benefit until we have a
    disaster. They protect billions of dollars of property and
    hundreds of thousands of families. But we simply struggle today
    with maintaining this infrastructure, let alone building new
    and modernized sustainable infrastructure.
        I have an example, though, of where we did build something
    that is state-of-the-art. I live in New Orleans, and because of
    a disaster, the Hurricane Storm Surge and Risk Reduction System
    outside of New Orleans is remarkable. But it was completed
    because there was a sense of urgency, there were enough funds
    appropriated, and there was a project delivery process that
    worked. If these investments are not made in conjunction with
    policy reforms, families will have a lower standard of living.
    Our Nation will lose ground in the global economy. As
    conditions continue to deteriorate, we estimate that the cost
    to American families alone each year is a little over $3,000.
        We look forward to working with the committee as it drafts
    this new legislation. Pay special attention to alternate
    financing, multiple project benefits and ecosystem restoration.
    New legislation this Congress will give regular order again; it
    will allow project managers certainty, the ability to plan.
        And finally, in a few weeks, members from 50 States of our
    organization will come to D.C. to meet with you, so please take
    the time to meet with these experts in infrastructure. They
    will be able to give you some information and more details on
    the state of our infrastructure and how important investment is
    to us.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mattei follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Mattei.
        Kyle Makarios is the Director of Government Affairs, North
    Central States Regional Council of Carpenters.
        Mr. Makarios.

      STATEMENT OF KYLE MAKARIOS, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
          NORTH CENTRAL STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS

        Mr. Makarios. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
    Boxer, distinguished members of this committee. I am honored to
    join you today. My name is Kyle Makarios, and I am the Director
    of Government Affairs for the North Central States Regional
    Council of Carpenters. My union represents 25,000 carpenters,
    millwrights, pile drivers, and floor coverers in Wisconsin,
    Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. I
    also serve on the Board of the Upper Mississippi Waterways
    Association, a Minnesota-based association of businesses who
    rely on reliable navigation on the Mississippi River to move
    goods.
        The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
    America, my national union, represents over a half-million men
    and women who make their living building our Nation. Many of
    those members are employed building the projects directly under
    the purview of this committee, the public works and
    infrastructure projects that connect our country internally and
    to the world. Along with several other crafts, including
    operating engineers and laborers, our members perform the bulk
    of the heavy construction and maintenance of the Nation's ports
    and waterways, locks, and dams. Every day across this country,
    thousands of our members go to work for hundreds of
    construction contractors building and providing maintenance on
    locks and dams and keeping our key navigation channels open.
        I am here today to assure this committee that enacting a
    new Water Resources Development Act is very important to our
    Nation's construction workers and the businesses who hire them,
    as well as those that are part of our supply chain. Previous
    enactments of WRDA have authorized projects that are currently
    putting thousands of our members to work, and more steps are
    needed to continue to upgrade and modernize the navigation
    potential of our country's inland waterways.
        As you just heard, the American Society of Civil Engineers'
    2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure points out the
    dramatic need to increase investment in order to ensure
    reliable, efficient movement of commodities in this country. I
    applaud the bipartisan effort that this committee has helped
    lead--both in this Congress and in the previous--to address
    this urgent need to upgrade both surface and waterways
    transportation infrastructure.
        Not only is enacting a new Water Resources Development Act
    important to our members who work directly on heavy
    construction and civil works projects, but it is equally
    important to many other members. Farmers and businesses rely on
    a reliable and efficient transportation network to get goods to
    market. A barge leaving my home town of Saint Paul, Minnesota,
    must travel through 27 lock chambers to get downriver to the
    Port of New Orleans. It is critically important for the economy
    of States along the Upper Mississippi River that those
    businesses and farmers have a high degree of confidence in that
    system so that they can continue to employ our members building
    and maintaining their grain elevators, steel mills,
    manufacturing plants, power generation facilities, cement
    plants, oil refineries, and hundreds of other businesses that
    rely on river transportation.
        As the committee considers reauthorization of the Water
    Resources Development Act, I would respectfully voice support
    for a couple of key policy initiatives being advocated by the
    Waterways Council, Inc., a national coalition of which we are a
    member. We support increasing the existing threshold defining a
    major rehabilitation project from $20 million to $50 million,
    and authorizing the Calcasieu Lock, Louisiana, and the Upper
    Ohio River Chief's Reports.
        We also recognize and applaud the waterways industry's
    successful advocacy for an increase in their own user fee on
    fuel that was implemented by the last WRDA and oppose
    additional fees on the waterways at this time. But it is very
    certain that Congress should maximize the investment levels in
    these projects in order to put our members and other
    construction workers to work.
        Mr. Chairman, let me wrap up by reiterating that Congress,
    and this committee in particular, can serve a critical need for
    this country by leading a bipartisan effort to ensure that our
    Nation's inland waterways remain a reliable and cost-effective
    route for moving bulk commodities to and from the businesses
    and farms in our communities. In doing so, you will directly
    employ many thousands of construction workers and give
    confidence to private business whose investments will employ
    many thousands more.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Makarios follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Makarios.
        We will now have questions. And I think it would be very
    important, all of the members of the panel stress this every 2
    years to have one. As I mentioned before, we went 7 years the
    one before last without having one. That is very important. So
    it is important that your members be aware to use their
    influence on members to make this very popular program, and I
    say the same thing to all of you.
        Mr. Portiss, Mr. Swearingen talked about the bottleneck
    that can happen on the waterways, and that is a frightening
    thing. Every time I look at one of our locks and dams, I think
    what more is that going to affect.
        What would be the financial loss to the State of Oklahoma
    if a lock failure closed the McClelland-Kerr?
        Mr. Portiss. Excellent question, sir. Thank you. Two
    million dollars a day would be the hit on our State if that
    waterway were to shut down. We determined that through an
    input-output analysis about 6 years ago; and that is just the
    economic loss as far as the State as a whole is concerned. But
    the investment by the citizens of city of Tulsa and Rogers
    County, gone; no more waterway. We would have a nice industrial
    park, but no port.
        Senator Inhofe. You spent some time in your testimony
    talking about the thing that we put in the last WRDA bill that
    allows other people to get involved financially to help, and
    the interpretation by the Corps of Engineers seemed to be that
    it has to be a result of a natural disaster. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Portiss. That is correct. Right.
        Senator Inhofe. Did you think at the time, when we added
    that language, that that would be the problem, that would
    happen?
        Mr. Portiss. Absolutely not.
        Senator Inhofe. I didn't either. I would ask you this
    question. What difference does it make if it is using outside
    Government resources to do something, to make an approval on a
    public project, whether that resulted from a natural disaster
    or otherwise?
        Mr. Portiss. Senator, it shouldn't make any difference at
    all. If you have an emergency situation occur or we have a
    failure, goodness sakes, why can't we step in and provide and
    help them with resources they don't have to fix the problem? I
    am not talking about long-term; I am just talking about putting
    a Band-Aid on it, so to speak, so that the waterway can
    continue to operate.
        Senator Inhofe. Do the rest of you agree with that? I am
    talking to the rest of them now.
        Did you agree, Mr. Swearingen? Did you believe that that is
    the way it would be interpreted when that language went in?
        Mr. Swearingen. Yes, Senator. I think it is important,
    though, anything the committee can do to incentivize the Army
    Corps of Engineers to maintain the infrastructure. We have seen
    a number of situations up and down the Ohio River where gates
    have failed to function, and we have been stopped for 50, 60
    days at a cost of millions of dollars. There was one lock where
    the gate literally fell off that took months to repair. So I
    think anything that the committee can do that would incentivize
    the Corps to maintain and do the proactive maintenance that is
    necessary to avoid the significant maintenance outages I think
    is well served.
        Senator Inhofe. That is not my question, though. My
    question is, in the absence of that, we should take full
    advantage of what is out there, outside of Government, to put
    the Band-Aid on, to keep everything moving. That is the concern
    that I have.
        Mr. Swearingen. I think any kind of resourcing needs to be
    brought to bear on the issue, yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. How, Mr. Swearingen, would your companies
    and your customers be affected if you couldn't use the waterway
    to ship your fuel, steel, and other products that you make?
        Mr. Swearingen. Many routes that we move, that is the
    primary route for distribution of petroleum products, so any
    time you have some kind of delay or outage for extended period,
    then you have to find alternate transportation routes.
    Typically, that is long-haul trucks, which just simply drives
    the price up.
        Senator Inhofe. And you heard Bob Portiss talk about the
    public-private partnerships. Would your companies benefit and
    be willing to participate in those partnerships also?
        Mr. Swearingen. Well, I think we would have to really take
    a look at it, Senator. I think, again, any kind of resourcing
    that can be brought to bear, we would really have to take a
    look at it and see if that would be something that provides an
    efficient and effective infrastructure funding mechanism. So I
    would not close off any opportunity.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. I want to thank you all for your testimony.
    It is very clear, and it is a call to this committee to step
    up, and we are going to. We are going to step up.
        Mr. Portiss, in your many years of experience, you point
    out in your way that our ports are an economic engine, and
    certainly in Oklahoma. I wanted to point out in California our
    ports employ more than 500,000 people. And if you take a look
    at the indirect jobs across the country because of all the work
    that comes when you are shipping, it is 3 million indirect
    jobs.
        So just in one State, albeit the largest State, 500,000
    direct jobs and 3 million indirect jobs. So I am glad that our
    ports are rated a C. We ought to do a lot better than that
    given the greatness of this Nation.
        Now, Doctor, in your presentation, which I found to be a
    real wake up call, you went through the report card, and I
    would ask unanimous consent to place that in the record at this
    time.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Boxer. What we are looking at is the best we do in
    this WRDA bill to look at our responsibility is the ports; they
    are a C. But dams are a D, drinking water is a D, inland
    waterways D^, levees a D^. That is just a sad, sad report card.
    If our kids came home with this, we would really be upset, and
    I hope we are going to be upset, and we are going to step up to
    the plate. So we will put that in the record, and I thank you
    for that, and I am so happy you were here and so articulate.
        Now, another thing you say in this report, which I am going
    to quote word for word. When we look at Flint, we all get so
    sad and sick about it, but listen to this: ``It's estimated
    that more than 1 million miles of water mains are in place in
    the United States. The condition of many of these pipes are
    unknown because they're buried underground, out of sight,
    they're owned and operated by various local entities. Some
    pipes date back to the Civil War era and often are not examined
    until there is a problem or water main break, and these breaks
    are becoming more common as there are an estimated 240,000
    water main breaks per year in the United States.''
        So I would ask if I could put that document in the record
    as well.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Boxer. So, again, Flint is a warning to us, it is a
    wake up call to us. It is something that we have now a moral
    obligation and I think a fiscal obligation to step up to the
    plate on, because when these things happen it costs taxpayers a
    fortune.
        Look what is going on in Flint. We still can't figure that
    out. We are going back and forth, how do you pay for it.
    Prevention is key here, and we know what we have to do. In the
    case of Flint, had they treated the pipes immediately, we
    wouldn't have seen the lead poisoning that we have seen.
        So we have to act. And I often say once you know there is a
    problem and it is hurting people, we have an obligation.
        Now, Mr. Makarios, in your testimony you discuss your
    support for a WRDA bill and the job it represents, and I think
    all of you have made the case; business, labor, everyone. Are
    the jobs created by projects authorized in WRDA good jobs that
    help workers support themselves and their families? Because we
    watch the Presidential, every candidate, whether Republican or
    Democrat, is saying that we have to raise wages and create good
    jobs. Are these good jobs? And could you give us an example of
    the types of jobs supported by WRDA projects?
        Mr. Makarios. Thank you, Senator, I would be happy to. I
    think it is important to keep in mind that a construction
    worker, every job they are ever on, they are working themselves
    out of a job because they are working for a project, and when
    that project ends they have to move on, and there has to be
    another job for them to continue.
        But having said that, these are very good jobs. Our
    members, when they are working, work very hard. When they are
    working today in Minnesota, it is in single digits; they are
    working outside and working very hard under tough conditions.
    And it is hot in the summer, and sometimes they are in the mud,
    and certainly when they are on heavy infrastructure projects,
    they are working on lock and dam projects, that is tough work.
        But they are compensated well. They have great benefits to
    take care of their families. They are paid good wages that take
    care of their families, and when they retire they are able to
    retire with dignity.
        Senator Boxer. Well, thank you for that.
        So I will close with this. We are still recovering from the
    great recession, and what we did on the highway bill was really
    beautiful, how we came together, and we were so proud as a
    committee. No one thought we could do it. We locked in economic
    growth in the transportation industry for 5 years, and we need
    to do the same thing for WRDA every couple years. I am so
    excited about the opportunity.
        And I couldn't imagine a better panel, in all sincerity,
    and I thank you all for your contribution.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    begin by thanking the Chairman and Ranking Member, and really
    this committee for beginning early steps to take action on
    WRDA, because it is important that we exercise our
    constitutional authority to make sure that the projects that
    will be studied and constructed by the Corps of Engineers are
    followed through. I was a conferee on the 2014 bill when I was
    in the House, and I remind everybody we had 91 votes in the
    Senate and 412 in the House, so it was a very overwhelming
    bipartisan support.
        And I would agree with the Ranking Member, it is nice when
    we have consensus that we can build together, because on this
    committee sometimes we just don't have that.
        So I think the panelists have all said it is universally
    agreed that waiting 7 years has a detrimental effect way far
    too long. So this is important to my home State. I am going to
    highlight a little bit.
        As you know, we have a lot of rivers, Mr. Swearingen, move
    a lot of product on our rivers, and one-third of our State's
    coal is shipped by barge. And shipping by barge is large for
    not just coal, but also natural gas and our chemical industry.
    According to the Corps, 32 million tons of commodities are
    moved by barge to and out of West Virginia, and more than half
    of these are shipped to our surrounding States.
        But water navigation is not the only benefit that we see.
    West Virginia's mountainous terrain makes us particularly
    vulnerable for flooding. Currently, thanks to previous WRDA
    legislation, the Corps is working to improve the Bluestone Dam,
    for instance, in Hinton, West Virginia. These improvements on
    this dam will not only allow our families to rest easier, but
    the annual flood damages prevented is estimated to be around
    $80 million.
        So, Mr. Swearingen, you mentioned several details that
    would prove beneficial if we successfully enacted the
    legislation. Could you kind of take the flip side of that and
    highlight for us maybe some of the difficulties and
    uncertainties are that would be associated with us failing to
    act every 2 years?
        Mr. Swearingen. Yes, Senator. I think, again, it comes back
    to the assuredness of affordable, available energy supply,
    because, as you well know, a lot of these water routes are
    truly the only effective, efficient way to deliver
    transportation fuels into the various markets. So if you don't
    have access to those, if you don't have certainty of access,
    then it simply drives up cost to the end consumer.
        Senator Capito. Does it have an impact on your company's
    willingness to invest and reinvest when the uncertainty is not
    there for the next several years?
        Mr. Swearingen. It certainly is a factor. We are very
    committed to our traditional Midwestern markets, South and
    Southeast. But even with that long-term commitment, if you have
    higher costs, higher operating costs, you have to factor that
    in to your long-term decisionmaking. So absolutely it can have
    a negative impact.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. One of the significant policy
    changes that we enacted in the last WRDA bill was the 3-by-3-
    by-3 process, where feasibility studies must be completed by
    all three levels of the Corps in 3 years at a cost of no more
    than $3 million. Now, I know it has been less than 3 years
    since the 2014 WRDA bill, but I am wondering has anybody had
    any experience with the 3-by-3-by-3? No. I see a no, no, no,
    no, no. All right, that's five by three nos.
        OK, I assume that probably will take longer to get into
    reality to see how that works. Obviously it is streamlining,
    trying to move these projects further, because time is money.
    These are very expensive projects.
        Dr. Mattei, you mentioned a report card, and I am with the
    Ranking Member there; if my children had brought home those
    report cards, I would go into immediate panic. And I started
    thinking, besides devoting resources and time, how would I get
    out of that, and I think one of the things I would have done
    would be to prioritize levees, dams. They are all very, very
    important. Is there any way from a civil engineering
    perspective that you would prioritize which one of those
    categories needs to bubble up first in terms of repairing our
    Nation's infrastructure?
        Ms. Mattei. Well, I don't think we really should limit
    ourselves to looking at one sector being more important than
    another. It is possibly better to look at each sector,
    prioritize and rank those projects within a sector, and then
    take across all sectors the riskiest, the ones that pose the
    most risk to the American public.
        Senator Capito. So make the decisions based on a risk-based
    decision, which makes a lot of sense when you consider what
    could happen if some of these failures would occur not only in
    commerce, but loss of life, property, and all those other
    things.
        Thank you very much. This has been a great panel. Thank
    you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to both
    you and the Ranking Member for taking up WRDA again.
        Rhode Island was first settled in the 1600s, and in the
    1700s Newport, Rhode Island, was a bigger deal than New York,
    New York. The British put an end to that when they occupied the
    place, and they were not good occupiers. But the result of it
    being a long-old, original State is that we have a lot of old
    infrastructure.
        Here is some new infrastructure from Rhode Island. See
    that? This is a pipe from Kingston Village, 1920s installed,
    and it is already corroded. You can see how little comes
    through that compared to original; and there is a lot more of
    that around for us to work on. There is plenty to be done.
        Senator Boxer. Can we look at that?
        Senator Whitehouse. Just be careful; it is a little dirty.
    Don't get it on your clothes.
        So thank you very much for keeping the focus on this.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. I wanted to make an additional point,
    and I think I have the sympathy of the Chairman and the Ranking
    Member in this, which is that when we disarmed ourselves of
    being able to do what were then called earmarks, i.e., have any
    specific congressional control over anything, we gave up
    enormous amounts of our legislative power. I had a conversation
    with Chairman Enzi the other day and I said, you know, there
    are lots of traditional fights in Washington; one is party
    versus party. We all know that one. One is executive versus
    legislative; one is member versus staff, we see a certain
    amount of that. And he said don't forget Senate versus House.
    So those are our big four fights. And in the executive versus
    legislative fight, I don't think we have ever seen unilateral
    disarmament by a legislature to the point virtually of self-
    mutilation that we did by handing all of this authority over to
    the executive branch.
        Senator Inhofe. This will surprise you, Senator. I agree
    with you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Exactly. We pour money into the Army
    Corps of Engineers and it goes into a pile where they have huge
    lists of projects, and they pick and choose without virtually
    any input from us. Unless you are, I think, one of the real
    senior masters of the universe who they need for appropriations
    and things like that, then I suspect that there is a back
    channel that gets things done. That, to me, is no improvement
    over an open earmark in a public process in a formal committee.
        So I am keen to work with members of this committee to try
    as best we can to define and refine our response to the earmark
    rule so we are not simply emasculating ourselves and shifting
    the power over to executive officials who then have zero
    accountability to us, particularly if we only do this every 7
    years. So for all those reasons doing this every 2 years is
    something that I applaud. I know it takes a lot of effort, and
    for the Chairman and the Ranking Member to have done this, I
    appreciate it.
        I would like to mention one other topic just by way of if
    somebody else is interested in working with me on this. When we
    think of dams, we often think of big working dams. We think of
    power generating dams, Hoover Dam, we think of people damming
    the Columbia and things like that.
        Rhode Island has hundreds of dams. We are not a big State.
    We have hundreds of dams going back through our whole history.
    Some of them it is not even clear from their title who even
    owns them any longer. And trying to get a little hydro system
    installed, trying to get a canoe or kayak passage approved,
    trying to get permission to just route the stupid thing out so
    that its collapse in a crisis is no longer a health or safety
    threat to people below is a very, very complicated set of
    procedures. It is not significantly different to do that versus
    to do dam across the Columbia River.
        So the result is hundreds of these old dams get no
    attention because the bureaucratic and administrative costs of
    addressing them is so high that it is not worth the candle to
    deal with it. So finding a way to deal with these old dams I
    think would be a very useful process. If anybody else is
    interested, I put up my flag on that issue and look forward to
    hoping that that could be a bipartisan issue.
        So thank you. Let's get these rotten old pipes replaced.
    Well done on reasserting our legislative authority, and let's
    see what we can do about the old dams that are a threat but
    there is too much bureaucracy around fixing them to get it
    actually fixed.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I might add
    on your comment on earmarks, since the moratorium originally
    went in, not one cent was saved. Did you know that?
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Roberson, I just wanted to thank you for being here
    today. As you know, I had a field hearing for the EPW Committee
    in August, and I was very, very pleased that John Kinter, the
    Environmental Manager at that great Nucor plant that we have in
    Norfolk, Nebraska, was there to testify, and he did an
    absolutely wonderful job in providing this committee with
    appropriate good information. So thank you for being here.
        I do have a question for you. Congress addressed the
    importance of resilient construction in the 2014 WRDA, and in
    your opinion, what was the intent of that?
        Mr. Roberson. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the kind
    words about our nice plant, and thank you for the platform that
    you provided for us.
        Senator Fischer. Well, we love having you in Nebraska.
        Mr. Roberson. Outstanding. We love being there.
        The Army Corps of Engineers sets the standards for the
    large infrastructure projects with respect to resiliency, so I
    don't know that I can speak to what qualifies for that. What I
    can tell you is that steel is a resilient, durable product
    that, irrespective of that standard, we are prepared to provide
    material in support of that. In fact, the Rhode Island pipes
    that I saw, they are just dying for some Nucor steel in the new
    pipe manufacturing process.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Swearingen, your testimony mentions the necessity of
    investing in energy transportation infrastructure. How will
    these infrastructure investments ensure American families have
    access to affordable energy?
        Mr. Swearingen. Senator, great question. I think with the
    energy boom and the renaissance in the United States, it is
    great to have the production, but you have to get it to the
    markets. The energy infrastructure, whether it is pipe, whether
    it is waterways, whether it is rail, whether it is truck, are
    all necessary, all of the above, in order to get that abundant
    affordable energy, keep it affordable, and get it to the end
    consumer.
        Senator Fischer. And will that help to make energy more
    affordable for our families?
        Mr. Swearingen. Absolutely.
        Senator Fischer. It definitely will. How are we going to
    move ahead on that? What are your recommendations?
        Mr. Swearingen. Well, I think certainly with the WRDA bill,
    moving forward with that and maintaining the infrastructure, I
    think continued work on pipeline safety authorization to enable
    pipelines, continued infrastructure development on the roads
    and the rails. It is really an all-of-the-above necessary
    infrastructure.
        Senator Fischer. I am glad you mentioned pipelines. I have
    a Safe Pipes Act that I am hoping we can get passed here in the
    Senate. I think it is very important that we move that bill
    forward. It helps with the regulations; it is going to help
    make our pipelines safer. So thank you for mentioning that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. I want to thank Senator Fischer also for
    mentioning our Safe Pipes Act; we are working on together in
    the spirit of bipartisanship, which I hope makes the Chairman
    happy. And I want to thank the panel for being here today in
    general.
        I just cannot emphasize enough, after going to visit New
    Jersey and seeing the storm we just had, where in some areas
    the flooding was worse than Super Storm Sandy; to see people
    lose their homes, to see people who have had their livelihoods
    affected. The urgency that exists with us doing work that is
    improving our resiliency. And it is the most fiscally
    conservative thing I can think to do, which is to make a small
    investment up front to prevent from having to make a massive
    investment later on.
        So I cannot emphasize enough, as we start to talk about
    WRDA, about the urgency for resiliency efforts. It is the
    fiscally conservative thing to do, it is the enlightened thing
    to do. And after seeing the damage again in Cape May County
    last month, it is the humane thing to do, to empower families
    to persevere despite the wacky weather that we are having.
        The second thing that is very important to me is just this
    outrageous reality we have in this country where we have such
    an aged, decrepit system of delivering water to people.
    Literally, New Jersey, probably about $4 billion of deficit in
    terms of keeping the systems up, hundreds of billions of
    dollars nationally, that right now, and I am not just talking
    about Flint, but right now is putting our families, our
    children, our elderly folks in danger.
        Lead poisoning is not just something that happened in
    Flint, Michigan; it is happening based upon aged infrastructure
    all across our Nation, endangering young people, endangering
    elderly, endangering health and safety, particularly in poor
    neighborhoods.
        If the greatest natural resource this country has is not
    oil or gas, it is the genius of our children, then what we are
    doing with our inability to invest in improving this
    infrastructure is, to me, such an affront to everything we say
    we are as a Nation. And again, it is the fiscally conservative
    thing to do, upgrading these pipes, protecting health and
    safety, saving on medical costs, unleashing the economic
    potential. And the data shows, in fact, that investments in
    water infrastructure create an economic return in the same year
    that you make that investment that is far greater than what
    folks on Wall Street struggle to get every single day.
        So I just want to just emphasize those two urgencies.
        But very specifically to Dr. Mattei, I am working on a
    potential Senate companion bill to Congressman Earl
    Blumenauer's bipartisan Water Infrastructure Trust Fund Act
    that he introduced just last week with two of his Republican
    colleagues. The Trust Fund would provide resources, as you
    know, to improve our water infrastructure through the creation
    of a labeling system that would allow companies to voluntarily
    contribute to improving our water infrastructure. I am
    interested in working with my colleagues on the EPW Committee
    to include this proposal like the Water Infrastructure Trust
    Fund in this year's WRDA bill. I think it is an important step
    to addressing some of the issues I just talked about.
        So in the brief moment I have left in my time, Dr. Mattei,
    can you provide some of your thoughts on how the Water
    Infrastructure Trust Fund Act could help us address our chronic
    underfunding of our watershed and drinking water
    infrastructure?
        Ms. Mattei. Thank you for that question. Drinking water
    received a grade of D, and there is about a quarter of a
    million water main breaks a year.
        Senator Booker. Even beyond water main breaks, we are just
    leaching water out. There are leaks consistently where we are
    losing a tremendous amount of water we are treating and pumping
    as well.
        Ms. Mattei. Right. Back in my hometown it is about 40
    percent. So the older the city is, the leakier the connections
    of the distribution system. So we treat this water, which costs
    us money, and then we allow for some of that product to leak
    out, and that costs the American public.
        Senator Booker. So can you speak to Blumenauer's
    introduction? Is that something that would help getting more
    resources for our water infrastructure?
        Ms. Mattei. Of course it would. It is voluntary but it
    would allow for another source of funding in order to address
    some of the needs that we have in the area of drinking water.
        Senator Booker. Yes. You call it common sense. You would
    call it something that is just common sense allowing for that?
        Ms. Mattei. Just common sense to fix the leaks so that we
    drink what we clean.
        Senator Booker. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank all of you all so much for being here. We do
    appreciate all of your expertise and your willingness to come
    and share with us.
        Mr. Roberson, in Arkansas alone I understand that the Nucor
    facilities can recycle over 6 million tons of steel per year.
    You have some of the lowest emissions in the steel industry
    anywhere in the world. I believe that you have reduced energy
    intensity by more than 30 percent since 1990, and greenhouse
    gas emissions have fallen by 35 percent over the same time
    period, which is excellent. In short, Nucor is a global steel
    producing powerhouse, and your locations in Arkansas near the
    Mississippi River are globally competitive because of the
    waterway. That is one of the major things.
        Could you talk about how you are able to keep jobs in
    Arkansas and achieve environmental goals in part by remaining
    competitive globally?
        Mr. Roberson. Well, thank you, Senator. In Arkansas, I
    spent the first part of my career actually at one of the plants
    there in Arkansas, about 7 years. We locate those facilities
    where good American workers with good strong work ethics
    reside. They have a natural transferrable skill set that
    supports manufacturing steel, and that is one of the things
    that has driven the ability to do that in that State.
        Senator Boozman. Can you talk a little bit more about the
    importance of the inland waterways and how they affect your
    ability to transport your product in a very environmentally
    sensitive way, compared to being on trucks or on rail or
    whatever, and how that allows us to keep jobs at home as we
    compete in a very, very tough environment globally with others
    throughout the world?
        Mr. Roberson. Absolutely. So I mentioned in my testimony
    that 1,700 tons move on a barge. Many of our plants, the plants
    that you mentioned, 90 percent of their raw materials that come
    into their plants are moved on the waterway system. If you
    think about a catastrophic failure or the deterioration of
    service on the waterways, moving that to the rail system, that
    same 1,700 tons would now equate to 17 additional railcars
    moving product or, conversely, 80 truckloads. So if you think
    about that times bringing in 6 million tons of product and
    comparing that to our highways, it just doesn't make a lot of
    good common sense.
        Senator Boozman. So lots more emissions and lots more
    expense.
        Mr. Roberson. Lots more emissions, yes.
        Senator Boozman. Lots more of expense for your company in
    trying to compete.
        Mr. Roberson. Absolutely.
        Senator Boozman. Mr. Portiss, I would like to follow up a
    little bit on Senator Inhofe's question and your comment about
    what we try to do in the WRDA bill regarding the Corps' ability
    to accept help in an emergency.
        You said that in Oklahoma it would cost, what, $2 million a
    day, is that right?
        Mr. Portiss. That would be the economic loss to the State
    if a failure should occur, yes, sir.
        Senator Boozman. The other problem is one of the situations
    that we are always fighting with inland waterways is
    reliability. What would that do in the sense of if you had to
    shut down for many months, what would that do as you divert
    traffic off of that and people figure out, well, maybe we ought
    to shift to something else that is more reliable? What would
    that do to the system? Has anybody studied the long-term effect
    of the loss of business in the system in that regard?
        Mr. Portiss. There have been a multitude, Senator, of
    studies that have been done to try and figure out what would
    happen if we lost the waterway completely; what would be the
    alternatives for us to move those same products. Quite frankly,
    to me, having been in this business all these years, it would
    be devastating. We have worked for 45 years to try and develop
    our ports along our waterway, and I think we have done a
    respectable job. Now, all of a sudden, the whole waterway is at
    risk. So, therefore, those companies that we have been able to
    attract to locate in Arkansas and Oklahoma, gone.
        They are talking about doubling of international trade, at
    least, over the next 10 years. Our highways, our railroads do
    not have the capacity to be able to handle that. My friends
    that run the Port of L.A. in Long Beach, used to have a good
    friend out there by the name of Geraldine Nance, and she said,
    Bob, we don't have any more capacity here. It is just an
    example of why it is so important for us as a Nation to keep
    our inland waterway system viable.
        Selfishly, in Oklahoma, we are kind of new, but we are
    adding tremendously every single year. But that all would be
    lost if we lost this waterway. And I can give you company upon
    company names where I don't know what they would do. They would
    have to cut back production, cut back jobs, and the impact
    would be literally devastating.
        Senator Boozman. No, that is an excellent point. We talk
    about our farmers working hard to feed the world with the need
    in the future, and they can produce it, but if you can't get it
    there, then you have big problems.
        Thank you all very much. We appreciate your being here.
        Mr. Portiss. Thank you for the question, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you,
    and I want to thank Senator Boxer for the manner in which you
    have always worked together on the WRDA bill. You both
    understand how critically important it is to our Nation's
    future.
        And I know that this committee wants to get the most robust
    WRDA bill done because we recognize it's jobs and it's economic
    growth and it enables so many important activities in our
    States. And you open up the process, and I really appreciate,
    and I will be coming to you on individual projects such as
    Smith Island, the last inhabitable island on the Chesapeake
    Bay, along with Tangiers, which is in Virginia. But in
    Maryland, Smith Island is the only--important to the Port of
    Baltimore, not only to commerce in my State, but the entire
    country, and how we need to pay attention in the WRDA bill to
    those types of economic activities.
        I talk about the Chesapeake Bay. I talk about Chesapeake
    Bay whenever I can, and the WRDA bill is an important tool in
    preserving this national treasure. And I certainly will be
    talking to you about Baltimore City and its economic
    development future. It has certain issues that I think we can
    deal with in the WRDA bill.
        But let me just use my time to underscore what many of my
    colleagues have talked about, and that is the importance for
    us, as the authorizing committee, to speak to a crisis we have
    in America, and that is the water infrastructure of America is
    in crisis. Now, we saw that in Flint. Flint was a very obvious
    symbol of drinking water pipes that are old, contain lead, and
    then inaction and, in many cases, failure to act when they
    should, put children and families at risk. And I hope before we
    go home for this recess that we will deal with this in the
    energy bill, dealing with Flint's issue, but I want to make
    sure we deal with the specifics.
        But the problem is nationwide. Let me just give you some of
    my figures on lead. In Washington, DC, in the early part of the
    last decade, lead leached into the water of possibly 42,000
    children. In the city of Baltimore, high lead levels in the
    school prompted officials to turn off drinking fountains and
    pass out bottled water. We don't use drinking fountains in our
    schools, we don't; we use bottled water in our schools in
    Baltimore City. We have been doing that for a while. And across
    the State of Maryland, every 1- and 2-year-old in the entire
    State will be tested for lead. That is 175,000 children will be
    tested for lead because we believe that there has been too much
    exposure in our State, and we want to do something about it.
        I think everybody has heard the circumstances about Freddie
    Gray and the tragedy that occurred in Baltimore. He suffered
    from lead poisoning.
        So we have to do something about the water infrastructure
    in America. This committee has tried to do things in the past.
    We have not been able to get to the finish line on some of
    these. The EPA estimates that our water infrastructure needs
    about $655 billion, $655 billion. We appropriate $2 billion a
    year in the State revolving funds, and we have not reauthorized
    the safe drinking water. I hope that in WRDA there will be an
    opportunity for us to take up the reauthorization of the Safe
    Drinking Water Revolving Fund.
        I noticed the President's budget is terribly inadequate in
    this area, Mr. Chairman. It is inadequate in the drinking
    water, and it is certainly inadequate in the clean water, where
    he cuts the Clean Water Fund. And as we all know, if you don't
    deal with the safe handling of our wastewater supplies, it
    affects the quality of water that goes into our drinking water,
    as well as into our streams, as well as into our environment.
        So I appreciate that the American Society of Civil
    Engineers gives us a report card every 4 years.
        Could you just explain, Doctor, why we got a D+? I didn't
    know we deserved a D+. Is there some improvement that I didn't
    know about? Obviously, that is an unacceptable grade. Tell me
    why we are deficient. This is the greatest Nation in the world.
        Ms. Mattei. This is the greatest Nation in the world, but
    we have been really riding on the coattails of our parents and
    our grandparents, and the investments that they made, and we
    have not really maintained it properly, nor have we modernized
    this infrastructure properly. We really need to be smarter and
    build smarter.
        We determined these grades based on eight different areas:
    Capacity. So we need the capacity. Condition. What is the
    condition of each of these items? What is the funding that is
    in the pipe already? What is the future need? Because we see
    growth in many areas. O&M, operations and maintenance, which we
    have been pretty bad as a Nation on maintaining our
    infrastructure properly. Public Safety. Resilience, as has been
    mentioned. It is a lot cheaper to create resilient
    infrastructure than to throw money at it when it breaks and
    there is a disaster. And finally, Innovation. So those are how
    we get those grades. And across the board, in all sectors, we
    are not doing a good job at any of those eight areas.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for your testimony. I do know
    that this committee wants to do something about it, and we are
    going to try to find a way to make that a reality. Thank you
    for your testimony.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Before Senator Cardin
    heads for the floor to help manage the Career Sanctions bill,
    what I am going to talk about here today is the damage we
    sustain on beaches from the southern part of your State all the
    way to the northern part of my State, and you were a partner in
    this, but the great work that is done by the Army Corps of
    Engineers to help restore the dunes that are on our beaches
    from Fenwick Island, which is just north of Ocean City,
    Maryland, all the way up to Lewes, Delaware.
        We went through a nor'easter, I was told it was the worst
    nor'easter we have had since maybe 1962, and it occurred that
    this nor'easter of 1962 pretty much--I don't know if it
    destroyed all of our coastal towns, but it came pretty darn
    close. And in this case we had a nor'easter almost as bad as
    that one, and when the winds subsided and the storm subsided,
    the buildings in all these towns were still standing, the homes
    were still standing; the infrastructure, the roads, the sewer
    systems were still operable, and the boardwalks were still
    there, and it is because of the work that was done in preparing
    defense against the onslaughts of Mother Nature. Some of those
    dunes are largely eroded, largely gone, but they need to be
    maintained and sort of rebuilt. Mother Nature is beginning to
    bring sand back onto the beach, and we are bulldozing that sand
    up to the boardwalks, so we are getting a little helping hand
    there from Mother Nature, but there is more work to be done.
        I am not sure who to start off with this question, but I
    understand one of you is a president-elect, so we will just
    start with you. President Mattei, Dr. Mattei, your first name
    is Norma Jean.
        Ms. Mattei. Norma Jean. My momma did that to me.
        Senator Carper. Has anyone asked you about your name today?
        Ms. Mattei. Not yet, but people sing the song to me,
    Goodbye, Norma Jean, all the time.
        Senator Carper. Hello, Norma Jean.
        Ms. Mattei. Thank you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I want to echo Senator Booker's comments on
    the importance of investments to protect life and property
    along our coasts. In the middle of our Nation we invest in dams
    and levees and flood control, but on our coast--as I have
    alluded to, and Senator Cardin would agree with this--it is
    beaches and dunes that protect us and help us to save money
    when we get hit by a big one, as we were a couple of weeks ago.
        Unfortunately, we are seeing damaging storms come along
    more frequently. As I mentioned, a couple weeks ago a storm
    called Jonas did more damage in Delaware than many summer
    hurricanes. Nor'easters are what we fear really more than
    hurricanes these days.
        But I will be touring these areas. I have been down to them
    a couple of times with our Governor, our congressional
    delegation. I am going to go back later this week. What I am
    hearing is that the Army Corps is running low on funds to
    complete disaster repairs, and here is my question: Should
    Congress examine potentially increasing the amount of
    authorized emergency repair funding? And what else can we do to
    protect coastal residents from storm and flood damage?
        If we can start with you, Dr. Mattei.
        Ms. Mattei. So people love the water, they love to be by
    the water, they love to be by the beach, so I don't think that
    that trend of the population moving to the coasts or the inland
    coasts is going to change anytime soon. Regardless of the
    cause, we are suffering from an increase in sea level, so we
    know, as engineers, that we can design properly, but you need
    to fund and innovate. So it is a question of innovation, I
    think, and that costs money.
        So when you talk about coastal areas, and my hometown is
    the poster child for the issues that we are talking about.
        Senator Carper. Where is your hometown?
        Ms. Mattei. New Orleans.
        Senator Carper. OK.
        Ms. Mattei. So we have subsidence issues that the net
    difference that we are going to see in the future is, quite
    frankly, a little frightening.
        So there are measures that we can take to restore
    coastlines, but it is costly. And, as you mentioned, a storm
    can take away what you shore up along coasts, as far as sand
    dunes. So any measures to work with Mother Nature are usually a
    very wise thing so a healthy coastline is more resilient, it is
    more able to bounce back from a disaster.
        Senator Carper. All right. My time has almost expired.
    Could one more person just comment very briefly in response to
    the question?
        Thank you, Doctor, and good luck in your administration.
        Anyone else want to comment? Please. All right, I guess you
    said it all. Thanks very much.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe. Thank you
    both for holding this hearing today. I appreciate it very much.
        I am pleased that investing in our infrastructure is a
    bipartisan issue for our committee, and we all agree that
    investing in our infrastructure is critical for a growing
    economy, creating good paying jobs here at home and remaining
    competitive.
        As this committee puts together a new WRDA bill this year,
    we also have the opportunity to ensure that we are improving
    the safety of our water infrastructure, restoring our
    environment, and protecting coastal communities like those on
    Long Island and Staten Island against the effects of climate
    change and extreme weather such as Super Storm Sandy.
        As we are still rebuilding from the devastation of Super
    Storm Sandy, we have to actually rebuild smarter to ensure that
    our flood protection strategies will result in more resilient
    communities that are prepared to withstand future storms. We
    should look at additional steps we can take to encourage and
    support the use of natural infrastructure to protect against
    flood risk. Restoring coastal wetlands and other natural buffer
    zones against storm surge is critical to coastal States like
    mine.
        In addition to making our coastlines more resilient, we
    must also ensure that we are addressing the safety of hundreds
    of dams in upstate New York, many of which are beginning to
    show signs of aging. I hope that we can work together to
    address concerns that New York has about the continued
    maintenance of Army Corps-built infrastructure and find a way
    for the Corps to provide more technical assistance, and where
    necessary, funding to assist States with aging infrastructure.
        So I hope that this year's WRDA bill will also address the
    continued funding needs of the Great Lakes navigation system,
    including the commercial and recreational harbors along Lake
    Erie and Lake Ontario in New York.
        I just have a couple questions for Dr. Mattei. Dr. Mattei,
    what are the benefits of investing in environmental restoration
    and natural infrastructure to protect against the threat of
    extreme weather and storm surges?
        Ms. Mattei. So as I mentioned before, a healthy coastline
    or healthy estuaries are more capable of bouncing back from a
    storm or from riverine flooding, depending on where your high
    water comes from. So if you engineer those properly and
    smartly, sometimes it is not trying to restore a coastline to
    where it used to look, the way it used to look, but putting it
    where it needs to be in order to protect the public, in order
    to protect plants, industries. So you really have to be wise in
    where you put these coastal restoration projects. And if you
    work with healthy plant life, that can really provide
    resilience against storm surge or flooding.
        Senator Gillibrand. According to the American Society of
    Civil Engineers' 2015 Infrastructure Report Card for New York,
    we have 399 high-hazard dams, and $152 million are needed to
    repair dams in my State. What more should the Federal
    Government be doing to address these critical inspection repair
    needs to ensure the safety of communities near those dams?
        Ms. Mattei. Well, that is the million dollar question, or
    maybe it is more.
        Senator Gillibrand. No, it is $152 million.
        Ms. Mattei. And again it may be if Federal expenditures are
    not going to increase, then the costs perhaps are going to be
    pushed onto the States and to municipalities. At least in the
    dam arena we know how many we have and what the conditions are,
    so you know the number. Unfortunately, I don't have a crystal
    ball to tell you what is the one that is going to go first, if
    we do have a failure.
        Senator Gillibrand. Could the Federal Government at least
    do a review and prioritize them? These are Army Corps projects.
        Ms. Mattei. That is exactly where I was going.
        Senator Gillibrand. They should have the expertise to at
    least assess these ones are going to be the ones that will
    breach, that will harm human health more in a more likely way
    or more urgently. I would expect the Army Corps having an
    opinion about which projects are urgent would be useful.
        Ms. Mattei. So it is a matter of risk, so when you measure
    risk and you can rank them appropriately. Risk is, you take a
    look at the probability of a failure and also the consequences
    of that failure, so you might have a dam that is perhaps not
    highly probable of failing, but it is really protecting a lot,
    so the consequences of that failure then put it up in a higher
    priority level.
        Senator Gillibrand. OK.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        And we thank the panel.
        Any final comments, Senator Boxer?
        Senator Boxer. No. I am with you in your final.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, that is good.
        Well, we appreciate very much your coming. This is
    something, for those who are outside observing this committee
    for the first time, it is not always this friendly.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. But we get things done. While other people
    talk about it, we do it, with the help of people on the
    outside, like you. I appreciate very much each one of you
    taking the time to come, particularly Bob Portiss because he
    came from my hometown.
        We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
        [An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

                        Statement of Hon. David Vitter,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana

        Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer, for
    holding this very important hearing on the Water Resources and
    Development Act. Three years ago, this committee, and
    ultimately Congress, passed a bipartisan WRRDA bill that
    addressed many of our Nation's water resources needs and the
    Army Corps of Engineers' project delivery process. Success was
    achieved through this committee's deliberative process, and the
    same success can be achieved if we follow the formula that gave
    us a bill in 2014.
        This hearing to discuss the importance of passing another
    Water Resources and Development Act is a critical first step to
    achieving a successful bipartisan solution to the problems that
    face our Nation's water resources infrastructure. However,
    success can only be achieved if concerns from members of this
    committee, and the full Senate, are properly addressed to the
    fullest extent possible.
        Accordingly, this committee must ensure that our partner in
    water resources development, the Army Corps of Engineers, is
    held accountable for their actions--or inaction--to properly
    maintain our waterways, dams, locks, and levees, and protect
    those in harm's way from catastrophic natural disasters like
    hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Irene, and Sandy.
        To achieve the aforementioned success in developing a
    bipartisan WRDA bill, I believe we must use the deliberative
    hearing process of this committee to address some very
    important issues affecting the Corps and our Nation's water
    resources projects.
        Several times over the past decade, I embedded myself with
    the Corps' New Orleans District as hurricanes and tropical
    storms made landfall in south Louisiana. It was important to me
    and my constituents to see how the Corps operated their
    disaster management plan and how the nearly complete $14
    billion post-Katrina hurricane protection system performed when
    pushed to the limits of Mother Nature.
        While the Corps' post-Katrina hurricane protection system
    has worked without incident and kept the metropolitan New
    Orleans area virtually free of flood waters on several
    occasions, many communities surrounding the protection system
    were inundated with upwards of 14 feet of storm surge during
    Hurricane Isaac. I visited many of those communities after the
    storm and witnessed firsthand the destruction caused by flood
    waters.
        One such community is LaPlace, Louisiana. This community of
    32,000 is located west of New Orleans along the east bank of
    the Mississippi River and south of Lake Pontchartrain. Local
    officials and the levee board have been trying for almost 40
    years to get a hurricane protection project, as Congress first
    authorized a recon study in 1971 and again in 1974. Over the
    past four decades, the Corps has unnecessarily delayed the
    project, changed the alignments, and increased the construction
    cost exponentially.
        Finally, after decades of work, the Corps has given
    Congress a favorable Chief's Report recommending construction
    of a critical flood protection measure to protect those people
    who have experienced the devastation of hurricanes in south
    Louisiana. To make this project a reality, Congress must
    authorize this project for construction, and it begins by
    passing a WRDA bill this year. Had there been some level, any
    level, of flood protection in place before Hurricane Isaac,
    much of the storm surge would have been prevented.
        I'm pretty confident that many of my fellow colleagues on
    this committee have water resources projects in their States
    that have been on the Corps' books for many years, decades in
    some cases. The current Corps study and construction schedule
    is approximately 20 years, and in some cases much longer. This
    lengthy process is unacceptable to the taxpayers who depend on
    the Corps to provide expeditious delivery of critical projects
    for flood protection, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and
    other water resource projects.
        It is imperative that this committee continue to build upon
    reforms to the Corps' current project delivery process outlined
    in WRRDA 2014 so the time to construct water resources projects
    is a few years and not a few decades. Simple reforms to how the
    Corps does business with States and local stakeholders are what
    this committee needs to address as we move forward on the WRDA
    bill.
        Another issue affecting not only Louisiana, but our Nation,
    is the ineffective operation and use of the Inland Waterway and
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Under the current Inland
    Waterway Trust Fund model, critical lock and dam projects are
    being constructed at a slow crawl, and several have experienced
    serious cost overruns since construction began. The Inner
    Harbor Navigation Canal is a project in Louisiana that will be
    constructed using IWTF dollars, but at the rate the Corps is
    constructing other projects on the trust fund's list, the Corps
    will not complete the IHNC before 2075.
        The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is not much different.
    This fund collects nearly $1.7 billion in excise tax on a
    yearly basis, but the administration and Corps only budget
    about half of that for use to operate and maintain our Nation's
    ports and coastal waterways. This is particularly unacceptable
    on the Mississippi River, which flows through the entire State
    of Louisiana into the Gulf. Historically, the cost to operate
    and maintain the lower Mississippi River, from Baton Rouge to
    the Gulf, is about $100 million-$120 million a year. However,
    the administration and the Corps only budget a little more than
    half of what it costs to operate and maintain this economic
    superhighway, which consequently is experiencing severe
    shoaling and vessel draft restrictions as a result.
        We must build upon the legislative fixes to these trust
    funds included in WRRDA 2014 to improve our Nation's
    competitive advantage in world markets, especially with the
    expansion of the Panama Canal. This committee must ensure that
    our Nation's ports and waterways are operated and maintained at
    their full width and depth, and water resources infrastructure
    on those waterways are built in a more expedited manner than
    the Corps' current schedule.
        I am appreciative of the efforts of Chairman Inhofe for
    holding this critical hearing to move forward on WRDA. I
    encourage the Chairman to work with the members of this
    committee in a transparent, bipartisan manner to find solutions
    to the issues affecting our Nation's water resource projects
    and policies that govern their success. In the interest of all
    taxpayers, we cannot afford to hastily push a bill through this
    committee without addressing these key issues. I look forward
    to working with you and your staff in an expeditious manner to
    help achieve passage of the next WRDA bill.

                                     [all]