[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, [email protected].
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]