[Senate Hearing 115-277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Shelby, Murkowski,
Hoeven, Kennedy, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, Shaheen, Merkley,
and Coons.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD T. SEMONITE, LIEUTENANT GENERAL,
COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, please come to order.
Today's hearing will review the President's fiscal year
2018 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Department of the
Interior.
This is the subcommittee's fourth and final budget hearing.
We are doing our best to get to the head of the line among
those subcommittees that have appropriations work to do.
Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening
statement. This gives me an opportunity to express, Senator,
once again, how much I value the relationship we have, and the
way we are able to work together with our staffs, who also work
together to produce legislation that is good for this country.
So I thank her for her leadership and her professionalism.
I will then ask each Senator, who is here, for up to five
minutes for an opening statement after Senator Feinstein and I
do. We will turn to our witnesses, then, to present testimony
on behalf of the Corps and the Bureau each.
We would like to ask each of you to keep your testimony to
about five minutes, which will give us time to ask questions.
Then I will give Senators an opportunity to ask five minutes of
questions each. We should have enough time for all the Senators
to ask questions. Senator Feinstein and I have another meeting
at 4:15 p.m. that we have to go to, so we will be through by
then.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here. Thanks
Senator Feinstein. Our witnesses include Douglas Lamont, Senior
Official, performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works. Lieutenant General Todd Semonite,
Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alan
Mikkelsen, Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation at
the Department of the Interior.
Today I will focus my questions on four main areas. One,
making our Nation's water infrastructure a priority; two,
properly funding our inland waterway system; three, adequately
funding our Nation's ports and harbors; and four, using a more
common sense approach to making funding decisions by looking at
the remaining Benefit to Cost Ratio of an ongoing project
instead of pretending the project is not already under
construction, which is what the Corps has to do today because
of the Office of Management and Budget rules.
Now, on the water infrastructure priority, based upon the
number of appropriations requests we receive each year, the
Corps of Engineers must be the Federal Government's most
popular agency.
The Corps' projects attract the intense interest of the
American people--all of the Senators who are here, including
the Chairman, Senator Cochran, whom we welcome--and of their
United States Senators.
I can recall when I was a member of the Environmental and
Public Works Committee, after the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers floods, a whole room full of Senators showed up to ask
for more money from the Army Corps to deal with what went wrong
and what went right with disaster relief efforts. So, there is
a real interest among Senators in what the Corps does.
The reason this year's budget request is such a problem is
that the U.S. Corps of Engineers touches the lives of almost
every American. It maintains our inland waterways, it deepens
and keeps our ports open, looks after many of our recreational
waters and land, manages the river levels to prevent flooding,
and its dams provide emission-free, renewable hydroelectric
energy.
It is not the first President to make a budget request that
is low for the Corps of Engineers, but to make up for these
shortfalls in this budget, the money has to come from somewhere
else. In my opinion, we should spend more, not less, on our
Nation's water infrastructure.
Last year, Congress provided record funding for our
Nation's water infrastructure by providing over $6 billion to
the Corps, the largest amount of funding for the Corps in a
regular appropriations bill.
Instead of building on what Congress provided last year,
the President's budget request proposes only $5 billion for the
Corps, more than $1 billion cut, or 17 percent less than what
was provided and what Congress approved for the current fiscal
year.
This is an enormous step backwards. In fact, if we simply
approved the President's request, the Corps of Engineers would
receive less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2006, setting us back more than a decade.
If we look at the condition of the locks and dams that the
Corps operates, for example, we can easily see exactly why we
need to spend more, not less, on water infrastructure.
The National Academies of Science in 2011 said the Corps
has 138 locks in operation that are over 50 years old, and that
the average age of our locks is 58 years.
Using locks is the only way for inland waterway shippers to
move things like grain, steel, fertilizer, and coal up and down
rivers. Having to unexpectedly shut them down for extended
periods of time could be catastrophic for agriculture and other
commodities that rely on them to get their goods to market.
Yet, as these facilities age, major upgrades, maintenance, and
sometimes replacement is required.
So I think it is fair to ask, why would the President cut
funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time when more funding
is needed?
On June 7, 2017 at a speech in Cincinnati, President Trump
talked about the importance of our Nation's waterways and
emphasized the need for more spending to help address the
maintenance backlog. But apparently, his message did not get
through to those who write the budget.
Instead of providing more funding, his budget provides
less, in fact, 17 percent less than last year, which will not
help the President achieve his own goal.
Now, properly funding the waterway system, critical
projects, such as Chickamauga Lock in Tennessee, have been
piling up for years due to a lack of funding, and many of us in
Congress have recognized that we needed to take steps to
increase funding for the Corps to address this backlog.
First, Congress passed a law that reduced the amount of
money that comes from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to
replace Olmsted Lock, a project in Illinois and Kentucky that
was soaking up almost all of the money that is available for
inland waterway projects.
Second, Congress worked with the commercial waterways
industry to establish a priority list for waterways that needed
to be funded, on which Chickamauga ranks near the top, in
fourth place.
And third, in 2014, working together in a bipartisan way,
we increased the user fee that commercial barge owners were
asked to pay to provide more money to replace locks and dams
across the country, including Chickamauga. These user fees are
deposited in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
These steps increased the amount of funding that was
available for inland waterways projects from about $85 million
in 2014 to $105 million this year. These funds in the Trust
Fund that are paid by waterway users are matched with Federal
dollars, which allow the Corps to make significant progress to
address the backlog.
Yet, the President's budget request only proposes to spend
$26 million from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund this fiscal
year, leaving about 84 percent of the available funds unspent.
That means, in effect, we would be collecting taxes from
commercial barges to go through the locks in order to improve
the locks, and then we would be keeping the money, putting it
in the bank, and not spending it for the intended purpose.
The budget request also only proposes to fund one project,
Olmsted Lock, and eliminates funding for the other three
projects that are already under construction and that received
funding last year: Lower Monongahela, Kentucky Lock, and
Chickamauga Lock.
Replacing Chickamauga Lock is important to all of Tennessee
and if Chickamauga Lock closes, it will throw 150,000 more
trucks onto Interstate 75. Construction has been ongoing for
the past 3 years, so it does not make sense for the
Administration to not include the project in a budget request.
I have worked with Acting Secretary Lamont and General
Semonite over the last year, and I deeply appreciate that
funding for construction of Chickamauga was included in last
year's work plan, which was the third consecutive year of
funding for this important project.
As General Semonite and I have discussed, starting and
stopping is not an efficient way to build projects. It wastes
the taxpayers' money. This year's budget proposal is a huge
step backward for our Nation's inland waterways.
I will be asking our witnesses today about the new user fee
for inland waterways proposed in the budget, which would raise
about a billion dollars over the next 10 years. This new fee
would be on top of the fee that was already increased in 2014,
which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would raise
$260 million over 10 years.
We need to spend the money that is already being collected
before we ask the waterways industry to pay more. It makes no
sense to ask barge owners to pay more in fees when the
Administration is not even proposing to spend all the fees that
we are collecting today.
The budget request this year also fails to adequately fund
our Nation's ports and harbors, such as Mobile Harbor in
Alabama, Savannah Harbor in Georgia, Long Beach Harbor in
California, and many others.
Four years ago, Congress looked to provide more funding for
our Nation's ports and harbors to ensure that we can compete
with other harbors around the world.
We realized the Government was spending only a fraction of
the taxes each year that were collected in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund for our ports and harbors, resulting in
billions of dollars of unspent funds just sitting in a bank
account that got bigger and bigger each year.
In fact, unlike the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which has
virtually no balance in the trust fund, the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund has an unspent balance today close to $9 billion.
To provide more funding for our ports and harbors, Congress
enacted spending targets for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. We
have met these targets for the last 3 years in the Energy and
Water appropriations bill.
So we have spent all the money that we collected in taxes
for the inland waterways for the last 3 years. We have met our
targets for three straight years on the ports and the harbors.
But this budget would take us backwards.
The target for 2018 is about $1.34 billion. However, the
Administration's budget only proposes to spend $965 million, a
shortfall of $375 million. So I will ask the witnesses how they
plan to sufficiently fund our ports and harbors without
requesting adequate resources to do it.
I would also like to recognize Alan Mikkelsen, Acting
Commissioner from the Bureau of Reclamation. We are glad you
are here. The Bureau of Reclamation delivers water to one out
of every five farmers in the West, irrigating more than 10
million acres of some of the most productive agricultural land
in the country.
Although Reclamation does not manage water resources in
Tennessee, I know of its deep importance to Senator Feinstein
and to other Senators of this Committee, and we look forward to
hearing your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
We're here today to review the president's fiscal year 2018 budget
request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation, which is part of the Department of the Interior.
Today I will focus my questions on four main areas:
--Making our Nation's water infrastructure a priority;
--Properly funding our inland waterways system;
--Adequately funding our Nation's ports and harbors; and
--Using a more common-sense approach to making funding decisions by
looking at the ``remaining benefit to cost ratio'' of an
ongoing project instead of pretending the project is not
already under construction which is what the Corps has to do
today because of Office of Management and Budget rules.
making our nation's water infrastructure a priority
Based on appropriations requests, the Corps of Engineers is the
Federal Government's most popular agency.
Corps of Engineers projects attract the intense interest of the
American people, and of their United States senators. I can recall
when, I was a member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee,
after a flooding of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, a whole room
full of senators showed up to ask for more money to deal with what went
wrong and what went right with disaster relief efforts. So, there's a
real interest in these proposals.
The reason this budget request is such a problem is that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers touches the lives of almost every American. The
Corps maintains our inland waterways, it deepens and keeps our ports
open, looks after many of our recreational waters and land, manages the
river levels to prevent flooding, and its dams provide emission-free,
renewable hydroelectric energy.
This is not the first president to do this, but to make up for
these shortfalls, the money has to come from somewhere else.
In my opinion, we should spend more, not less, on our Nation's
water infrastructure.
Last year, Congress provided record funding levels for our Nation's
water infrastructure by providing over $6 billion to the Corps of
Engineers--the largest amount of funding for the Corps of Engineers in
a regular appropriations bill.
Instead of building on what Congress provided last year, the
president's budget request proposes only $5.002 billion for the Corps
of Engineers, which is a more than $1 billion cut, or 17 percent less,
than what was provided last year in fiscal year 2017.
This is an enormous step backwards. In fact, if we simply approved
the president's request, the Corps of Engineers would receive less than
what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2006, setting us back more
than a decade.
If we look at the condition of the locks and dams that the Corps
operates across the country, for example, we can easily see exactly why
we need to spend more--not less on water infrastructure.
The National Academies of Science in 2011 said the Corps has 138
locks in operation that are over 50 years old, and that the average age
of our locks is 58 years.
Using locks is the only way for inland waterway shippers to move
things like grain, steel, fertilizer and coal up and down rivers, and
having to unexpectedly shut them down for extended periods of time
could be catastrophic for agriculture and other commodities that rely
on them to get their goods to market.
Yet, as these facilities age, major upgrades, maintenance, and
sometimes replacement is required, so I think it's fair to ask, why
would the president cut funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time
when more funding is needed?
On June 7, 2017, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Trump
recognized the importance of our Nation's waterways and emphasized the
need for additional investment to address the maintenance backlog.
But instead of providing more funding, his budget provides less--in
fact, 17 percent less--funding than last year for the Corps of
Engineers, which will not help him to achieve that goal.
properly funding our inland waterways system
Critical projects, such as replacing Chickamauga Lock in my home
State of Tennessee, have been piling up for years due to a lack of
funding, and many of us in Congress have recognized that we needed to
take steps to increase funding for the Corps of Engineers to address
this backlog.
First, Congress passed a law that reduced the amount of money that
comes from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to replace Olmsted Lock, a
project in Illinois and Kentucky that was soaking up almost all of the
money that is available for inland waterway projects.
Second, Congress worked with the commercial waterways industry to
establish a priority list for projects that needed to be funded, on
which Chickamauga ranks near the top, in fourth place.
And third, in 2014, working together in a bipartisan way, we
increased the user fee that commercial barge owners asked to pay to
provide more money to replace locks and dams across the country,
including Chickamauga Lock. These user fees are deposited into the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
These steps increased the amount of funding that was available for
inland waterways projects from about $85 million in fiscal year 2014 to
$105 million this year.
These funds--that are paid by waterway users--are matched with
Federal dollars, which allow the Corps of Engineers to make significant
progress to address the backlog of work on our inland waterways.
Yet the president's budget request only proposes to spend $26
million from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund this fiscal year, leaving
about 84 percent of the available funds unspent.
That means, in effect, we would be collecting taxes from commercial
barges to go through the locks in order to improve the locks, and then
we would be keeping the money, putting it in the bank, and not spending
it for the intended purpose.
The budget request also only proposes to fund a single project,
Olmsted Lock, and eliminates funding for the other three projects that
are already under construction and received funding last year--Lower
Monongahela, Kentucky Lock, and Chickamauga Lock.
Replacing Chickamauga Lock is important to all of Tennessee and if
Chickamauga Lock closes, it will throw 150,000 more trucks onto I-75.
Construction has been ongoing for the past 3 years so it does not make
sense for the administration to not include the project in the budget
request.
I've worked with acting Secretary Lamont and General Semonite over
the last year and I deeply appreciate that funding for construction on
Chickamauga Lock was included in last year's work plan, which was the
third consecutive year of funding for this important project. And as
General Semonite and I have discussed, starting and stopping is not an
efficient way to build projects.
This year's budget proposal is a huge step backwards for our
Nation's inland waterways.
I will also be asking our witnesses today about the new user fee
for inland waterways proposed in the budget which would raise about a
billion dollars over the next 10 years. This new fee would be on top of
the fee that was already increased in 2014, which the Congressional
Budget Office estimated would raise $260 million over 10 years.
We need to spend the money that is already being collected before
we ask the waterways industry to pay more. It makes no sense to ask
barge owners to pay more in fees when the administration is not even
proposing to spend all the fees we are collecting today.
adequately funding our nation's ports and harbors
The budget request this year also fails to adequately fund our
Nation's harbors, such as Mobile Harbor in Alabama; Savannah Harbor in
Georgia; and Long Beach Harbor in California, and many others across
the country.
Four years ago, Congress took a look at the need to provide more
funding for our Nation's ports and harbors to ensure we can compete
with other harbors around the world.
We realized that the government was spending only a fraction of the
taxes each year that were collected in the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund for our ports and harbors, resulting in billions of dollars of
unspent funds just sitting in a bank account that got bigger and bigger
each year.
In fact, unlike the Inland Waterways Trust Fund--which has
virtually no balance in the trust fund--the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund had an unspent balance of about $8.3 billion in 2014, and is about
$9 billion today.
To provide more funding for our ports and harbors, Congress enacted
spending targets for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014.
We have met these targets for the last 3 years in the Energy and
Water appropriations bill.
The target for fiscal year 2018 is about $1.34 billion. However,
the administration's budget only proposes to spend $965 million, a
shortfall of $375 million.
So I will ask the witnesses how they plan to sufficiently fund our
ports and harbors without requesting adequate resources to do it.
I'd also like to recognize Alan Mikkelsen, acting commissioner from
the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Bureau of Reclamation delivers water to one of every five
farmers in the West, irrigating more than 10 million acres of some of
the most productive agricultural land in the country.
Although Reclamation doesn't manage water resources in Tennessee, I
know of its deep importance to Senator Feinstein and other Senators on
this subcommittee, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Alexander. With that, I will turn to Senator
Feinstein for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I say every year, it still remains a delight to work
with you, and I very much appreciate your cooperation.
I would like to begin by welcoming our witnesses. General,
I have received your note and your comments about your recent
tour of California projects. I am very pleased you had a good
visit.
I know two of our witnesses are temporary stewards for
their position, so we look forward to moving on and discussing
some very big problems, not only with you, but with your
successors as well.
I am disappointed by the proposals from both agencies and
the Army Corps' budget for the Civil Works program that is cut
by $1 billion or 17 percent. That is really horrendous.
Previous administrations may have proposed similar cuts,
but President Trump spoke at length during the campaign about
how he would initiate dramatic new investments in America's
infrastructure.
I am here to say that the Army Corps is our only real
infrastructure project in America today. I am so grateful for
your work. You are responsible for building, monitoring, and
repairing critical infrastructure like levees, dams, and
navigation channels.
I received one of the big shocks of my life with what
happened at Oroville Dam a few months ago. A failure to
properly invest in our water infrastructure put, I think,
200,000 lives at risk and entire communities at risk as well.
Oroville, I believe, stands as a warning of further collapses.
I was just looking at the numbers and we have nearly 2,000
State-regulated, high hazard dams in the United States that
were listed as being in need of repair in 2015. That is
according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. And
a dam, I understand, is considered high hazard based on
potential for the loss of life as a result of failure.
By 2020, 70 percent of the dams in our country will be more
than 50 years old, and that is according to the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
What we saw happen at Oroville was just astounding because
we saw a spillway that was totally inadequate, huge sections of
which just collapsed, and water just poured with abundance.
We could have real problems in the future, Mr. Chairman,
with this area and I am going to take a real look at dams
throughout America. We would love to work with you in putting
together a kind of portfolio of need.
We came within God's good grace by not having thousands of
people killed in what happened up there. And I want to just
thank everybody that worked so hard to see that that dam could
spill properly as soon as possible.
Over the past 3 years, I have worked hard with Chairman
Alexander to invest more than $3 million in drought response
and I am very grateful to him. Last year's Omnibus marked the
turning point for mitigating an ongoing drought to investing in
preparations for the next drought.
And so, I am disappointed that the Bureau's budget request
appears to, once again, ignore bipartisan efforts made by this
subcommittee to invest in long term drought resiliency
infrastructure.
Chairman Alexander was gracious enough to agree to
inclusion of the first tranche of funding in the 2017 Omnibus.
It is my hope that this subcommittee will appropriate the
funding necessary each year to match those authorizations.
I want to be clear that we will be closely monitoring the
two agencies in front of us today to ensure that the United
States is prepared for the next major drought far better than
we were for the last one.
This means not just helping State and local partners build
new water supply infrastructure, but also other efforts, such
as: investing in substantially increased monitoring of
endangered fish species to better inform water pumping
decisions; developing the science necessary to better predict
weather phenomenon like atmospheric rivers and use those
predictions to more flexibly operate dams; creating new tools
to assess the safety and structural integrity of dams and
levees without having to empty them or take them offline.
The other major large scale effort that the two agencies
before us today, I hope, will focus on is climate change. We
have seen drought in the west and southeast, increasingly
erratic winter storms, floods, and potentially catastrophic sea
level rise.
Climate change, I believe, will require the Army Corps and
the Bureau to constantly reevaluate every piece of water
infrastructure in the United States, how it is managed, how it
is maintained. As these two agencies and all of their
scientists know, climate change is real and we must be
prepared.
I also really want to point out that the average age of the
90,580 dams in the United States is 56 years. So I am of the
opinion that we really do need a program of monitoring and
preventing what could be a catastrophic outcome. I suspect we
will have it.
Just one word of aside, California just has gone through
its biggest drought in history, since these records were taken.
Today, June, where our fire season begins in September or
October, we have six big forest fires burning today.
We have 102 million dead trees, according to the Forest
Service. We are expecting massive invasions of beetles and
other things that fly and do damage.
So drought, and climate change, and the imprecision of both
are really upon us in a major way. And given the limited
resources we have available to us under the spending caps, it
is really imperative that both agencies before us today think
critically and creatively to stretch resources and combine
multiple benefits in each project. I will give you an example.
This could mean investing in multipurpose projects. It just
so happens I have one, like the San Francisco Shoreline and
Hamilton City, where levees will be built for flood protection
and also conduct eco-system restoration to mitigate rising sea
levels and improve water quality.
My experience with the Army Corps over the past 24 years
has been--Mr. Chairman, coming from a very big State--has been
remarkable. I have found the heads responsive. They care. They
have a scientific background. They know what they are doing and
they do not resent us. And so, I think that that is a very
positive syndrome for the future.
So I hope that that will be the case and I believe it will.
That this Committee, and other committees like it here, could
work closely with you because I really fear a collapsing dam
problem throughout the United States based on age, based on
certain inefficiencies in original construction, and also based
on lack of proper maintenance.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
We will now proceed to opening statements from other
Senators.
I recognize Senator Cochran, our Appropriations Committee
Chairman, for any statement he may have.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
convening the hearing and presiding at this session.
We thank the witnesses for being here to help us find out
more of the details of the budget request submitted for the
Army Corps of Engineers.
I ask that my statement be printed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this important hearing to
review the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, and extend my
appreciation for the contributions you make to the country in your
various leadership roles.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers keeps our Nation's infrastructure
strong during times of peace and war. In carrying out its civil
mission, the Corps helps ensure continued improvements to our economic
interests, public safety, and environmental health.
The Corps' civil works functions are particularly important to my
State, as port dredging, construction of important flood control
projects and restoration of damaged coastlines impacts the overall
quality of life for Mississippians.
Ensuring that the Corps has adequate funding to meet its
responsibilities is a high priority of mine. Congress continues to act
responsibly to use the Energy and Water Development appropriations
bills as a means to provide the Corps with necessary resources. I look
forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony, and working closely with
them and members of this subcommittee as we move forward with the
fiscal year 2018 appropriations process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
We will print your comments in the record.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I could not agree with you more that the budget on this
water infrastructure is a step backwards. I look forward to
working with both the Chair and Ranking on water infrastructure
that you both talked about in your openings.
I think if there is going to be an infrastructure package
that the President has talked about, I think water should be at
the top of it and be a part of that. So I look forward to
working with you there.
I want to thank Mr. Mikkelsen. The Bureau's fiscal year
2017 spending plan came out last week, as I understand it, and
it includes some good investments for New Mexico, including $4
million in additional funding for the Eastern New Mexico Water
Utility Authority.
This project has $50 million in shovel-ready work. It is
just waiting on funds to put people to work, and I look forward
to working with the Bureau to assure the continued robust
funding for this project.
You may not be aware, but of the six rural water projects,
Eastern New Mexico is the only one that supports our national
security with 13 percent of the water from this project
consumed by Cannon Air Force Base. Assuring that the project
has robust funding is invaluable not only to the communities of
Clovis, Portales, and Melrose, but also to protect the
multibillion dollar investment of modernizing Cannon Air Force
Base. So thank you for that.
Lieutenant General Semonite and Mr. Lamont, I want to thank
you for continuing to prioritize reimbursements to entities in
New Mexico through the Environmental Infrastructure Program.
This year, the Corps' work provided $1.5 million to reimburse
three entities: Rio Rancho, Bernalillo County, and the MRGCD
(Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District).
But our work is not over; $9 million is still outstanding
to be paid to these partners, some of which has been waiting
for reimbursement for over a decade. I know $9 million may not
sound like a lot, but for these entities like Rio Rancho,
Bernalillo County, and the MRGCD, I can assure you, it is
significant.
Therefore, I hope you will continue to work with me to
prioritize these reimbursements so these communities can
reinvest their money in new water and wastewater projects and
get out of this cycle of borrowing against future funds.
To each of you, President Trump has been talking about
sending Congress an infrastructure package since his days on
the campaign trail. Something in concept almost everyone
supports and which I just mentioned.
When many people think of infrastructure, they think of
roads and bridges, but in rural America, we also know that
dams, levees, and rural water projects are invaluable
infrastructure. In fact, it is estimated that the value of the
Bureau of Reclamation's assets would be $94.5 billion to
replace, and to replace all our Federal water infrastructure
would be over $350 billion. Maintenance of these critical
assets is integral to our water security, fiscal security, and
national security.
We also know that for every Federal dollar spent on water
and wastewater infrastructure--and I mean real dollars not a
tax break--we generate $6.35 to the GDP (gross domestic
product).
Therefore, I hope you will each push the White House to
include robust funding in any infrastructure proposal for water
infrastructure and in particular in rural areas which need it.
Thank you and look forward to my round of questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and Senator Feinstein for the
leadership you bring here.
I was struck by the about $8 billion. Was that the right
figure in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Senator Alexander. I think it is now $9 billion, Senator
Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Or more. We have dire needs everywhere,
everybody here today has a need for infrastructure. I think we
have to look.
Chairman Cochran, I hope we have a nice allocation
ultimately for this Committee, but we ought to look at ways to
fund these needed projects that we all are pushing for that
will make this country move things, commerce, much better
again.
I ask that my entire statement be made part of the record,
and I look forward to the hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Feinstein for convening
this important subcommittee hearing to review the funding request and
budget justification for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the needs for improved water
infrastructure across the United States is great. Properly maintaining
our inland waterway systems, ports, and harbors is vital to ensure that
commerce can continue to flow throughout the Nation. From rural water
systems to port infrastructure, finding ways to fund these projects
must continue to be a priority for Congress and the Administration. I
look forward to working with you and the members of this committee
during the 115th Congress, and I welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shelby. It will be
made part of the record.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I do not have an opening statement, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. I pass, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo the remarks of Senator Shelby, and thank
you, and Ranking Member Feinstein for their leadership.
There are a lot of things in this world that are important,
but nothing more important than clean water. You can have all
the assets in the world, but if you do not have clean water,
you are not moving forward economically or with life itself,
because water is life.
In that vein, we have a lot of rural water projects in
Montana that have been on the books for a long time now. I ran
for the State legislature 20 years ago and they were on the
books then, and they are still on the books, and we still have
a long ways to go for completion on that.
I know money is a finite resource, but it is going to take
some dollars to get those done. Whether we can do it within
budget or with an infrastructure bill, it is critically
important we move forward on those projects because, quite
frankly, these folks need clean water.
The other thing I would just bring up, and we can flesh it
out more as the committee goes on, is invasive aquatics. The
zebra mussels and all the bad stuff that is in the water that
is all around, Montana has just been infected with them. It is
a big, big issue in a State where our outdoor economy is worth
$6.4 billion. Where we use that water for irrigation, those
invasive aquatics really can be harmful.
I know it is a tough issue, but the truth is we need to
work together to figure out ways to get our arms around this
and move forward in a way that these little buggers do not take
us out.
So thank you all for being here.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Tester.
We will now recognize our witnesses to give their
statements, beginning with General Semonite.
General, you may proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE
General Semonite. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member
Feinstein, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
I am Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, Commanding General
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the 54th Chief
of Engineers.
I am really honored to be here today accompanied by Mr.
Lamont to provide testimony on the President's fiscal year 2018
budget for the Civil Works program for the United States Army
Corps of Engineers.
I have been in Command of the Corps for just over a year,
and I continue to be amazed by the breadth and complexity of
the Civil Works program, as well as the expertise and
dedication of the professionals that work in our organization.
While this is my first time appearing before this
subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to work with a number
of you individually and look forward to continuing to build our
relationship during my tenure as Chief of Engineers.
It is my belief that the credibility of the Corps is
measured by our ability to deliver results that are on time, on
budget, and of exceptional quality.
To do this--and to maintain our status as a world class
organization now and into the future--we are focusing on three
fundamentals we call strengthening our foundation, delivering
the program, and achieving our vision. I want to give you some
highlights of those fundamentals.
As with any structure, our foundation must be our strength,
the bedrock upon which our present rests and our future is
built.
For the Corps, this means having the discipline to
accomplish routine tasks to a high standard. It means
demonstrating that we are reliable and competent partners,
assisting in shared efforts to be responsible stewards of our
Nation's water resources.
We are committed to transform our processes, invest in the
technical competency of our most valued asset, our people, and
to be collaborative and transparent.
Our strength is validated by earning trust in all we do by
demonstrating technical expertise, competence, and
professionalism across our organization.
We earn our credibility, our reputation, and our value by
delivering our program. This is our lifeblood. This is our
passion. This is our mission. And this is our number one
priority. In all we do, we strive to ensure that cost,
timelines, and expected quality are understood upfront and
accomplished successfully in the end.
In order to achieve our vision, we endeavor to anticipate
those conditions, challenges, and opportunities in an uncertain
future by taking prudent, logical, and decisive steps today to
prepare. We are doing this by implementing strategic
transformation within the Corps, continuing pursuing four goals
outlined within our campaign plan with an aim point of 2025.
Our first campaign goal is to continue to work across the
globe with a presence in more than 110 countries supporting
national security with our combatant commanders in civil works,
military missions, and water resources.
We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow
citizens, and we are proud of the work the Corps does to
support American foreign policy.
Our second goal is to continue to work in making the Corps
more efficient and effective while delivering integrated water
resource solutions for national missions, and to address
infrastructure challenges. This involves modernizing the
project planning process, enhancing budget development for more
holistic outcomes, making better risk informed investment
decisions, and improving delivery methodology.
Our third major goal is to continue to be proactive in
reducing disaster risk and responding to disasters under the
national response and recovery support framework, as well as
within our authority for flood risk management. I am very proud
of our team for the work we do with FEMA and our Federal
partners, as well as with State and local agencies in this
area.
Our fourth and final goal is preparing for tomorrow, which
focuses on our people and ensuring we have a pipeline of the
best engineering and technical expertise, as well as a strong
workforce development and talent management program. We
continue to tailor developmental programs to employ aspirations
to retain talent and instill a culture that embraces a career
of service.
And on about the fourth row back, we brought in 12 people
who are emerging leaders from the Corps, so they could sit here
today and to learn how this process works.
In closing, I would offer that our excellence demands the
commitment of every Corps employee. As Chief of Engineers, I am
striving to develop what General Shinseki, former Army Chief of
Staff, called irreversible momentum towards being a world class
organization. World class means for the Corps to continue
engineering solutions for the Nation's toughest challenges,
which is our vision.
We all must be leaders of technical competency and superior
integrity. You have my commitment that the teammates of the
Corps have a passion to achieve that vision.
Thank you for allowing me the time to address the Committee
today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein and Members of the
Subcommittee: I am honored to testify before your committee today,
along with Mr. Douglas Lamont, the Senior Official Performing the
Duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), on the
President's fiscal year 2018 Budget for the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) Civil Works Program. This is my first time to testify
before this Subcommittee and I look forward to working together during
my tenure as Chief of Engineers.
I have been in command of the Corps for just over a year, and I
want to briefly update you on where we're headed.
As an organization, the Corps' credibility is measured by our
ability to deliver results that are on time, on budget, and of
exceptional quality. To do this, and to keep us ``world class'', now
and into the future, we're focusing on three fundamentals we call
``Strengthen the Foundation,'' ``Deliver the Program,'' and ``Achieve
our Vision.''
First, as with any structure, our Foundation must be our Strength--
the bedrock upon which our present rests and our future is built. For
the Corps, this means having the discipline to do the routine things to
a high standard. It means demonstrating we are reliable and worthy
partners to assist in a shared effort by all levels of government and
the private sector to be responsible stewards of our Nation's water
resources--and to earn its trust--in all we do, from top to bottom, big
to small, tactical to strategic. It means having teams and processes
that ask and answer the right questions, like, ``do we have the
capabilities, capacity, and authorities,'' before we launch. And, it
means empowering leaders to think strategically because they are
confident in the discipline of our ranks.
Second, we earn our credibility, our reputation, and our value by
Delivering the Program. This is our lifesblood. This is our passion.
This is our mission. And this is our No. 1 priority. In all we do,
we'll ensure that costs, milestones, and expected quality are both
understood and met.
Finally, to Achieve our Vision, we'll do our best to anticipate the
conditions, challenges, and opportunities in an unknowable future and
take prudent, decisive steps today to prepare. We're doing this by
operationalizing strategic change with our Campaign Plan and its four
(4) Goals--Support National Security, Deliver Integrated Water Resource
Solutions, Reduce Disaster Risk, and Prepare for Tomorrow.
First, we continue our work across the globe with presence in more
than 110 countries Supporting National Security and our Combatant
Commanders with Civil Works, Military Missions, and Water Resources
Research and Development expertise. We are proud to serve this great
Nation and our fellow citizens and we are proud of the work the Corps
does to support America's foreign policy. Corps civilian employees
nationwide have volunteered--and continue to volunteer--to support our
Nation's missions and vital interests abroad, often in harm's way. Many
have served on multiple deployments.
Second, we continue to work at making the Corps more efficient and
effective while Delivering Integrated Water Resource Solutions for
national missions and to address infrastructure challenges. This
involves modernizing the project planning process, enhancing budget
development for more holistic outcomes, making better risk-informed
investment decisions, and improving delivery methods.
Third, we continue to be proactive in Reducing Disaster Risks and
responding to disasters under the National Response Framework, National
Disaster Recovery Framework, Public Law 84-99 as amended, and Corps
project authorities for flood risk management. I am so proud of our
team for the work we do with our partners at FEMA and State and local
agencies in this area.
Fourth, Preparing for Tomorrow remains about our people and
ensuring we have a pipeline of the best Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics teammates, as well as strong Workforce
Development and Talent Management programs. We continue to tailor
development programs to employee aspirations to retain talent and
instill a culture that embraces a career of service. We've enjoyed
success here, and continue to significantly improve our agency ranking
in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and on the list of best places
to work in the Federal Government. We are proud to say that we continue
to help our Nation's Wounded Warriors transition out of active duty
into fulfilling careers. In fact, this year we set a goal to assist 225
transitioning Wounded Warriors. I'm proud to say that we've nearly
reached this goal by assisting 185 Wounded Warriors through the end of
the 2nd quarter. Over the past 5 years, we've helped just over 1,300
Wounded Warriors find meaningful careers within the Corps and other
organizations.
In closing, may I say that our excellence demands the bone-deep
commitment of every Corps employee. I'm striving to develop what GEN
Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, called ``irreversible momentum''
toward being a ``world-class'' organization. I use those two words on
purpose because when I talk with my Corps team, I want all of us to
have something to relate to. Whether a regulatory biologist or
construction engineer, a human resource specialist or dam operator, an
administrative professional or general officer, ``world class'' means
that for the Corps to continue ``engineering solutions to the nation's
toughest challenges,'' which is our vision, we all must be leaders of
superior integrity and technical competence. We know our multi-billion
program doesn't deliver itself. Nor is the Nation served just by the
work that we do, but more importantly, by your entire Corps Team--
34,000 strong. Thank you for allowing me the time to address the
committee.
summary of fiscal year 2018 budget
The fiscal year 2018 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based
budget, and reflects a focus on the work that will provide high
economic and environmental returns to the Nation or address a
significant risk to safety. Investments by the Civil Works program will
reduce the risks of flood impacts in communities throughout the Nation,
facilitate commercial navigation, restore and protect aquatic
ecosystems, generate low-cost renewable hydropower, and support
American jobs. Continued investment in critical Civil Works
infrastructure projects is an investment in the Nation's economy,
security, and quality of life--now and in the future.
The Budget focuses on high-performing projects and programs within
the three main water resources missions of the Corps: commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The fiscal year 2018 Budget includes $5.002 billion in
gross discretionary funding for Civil Works activities throughout the
Nation, including the construction of water resources projects that
will provide high economic, environmental and public safety returns on
the Nation's investment.
The Budget also proposes the necessary level of funding for the
Regulatory program to protect and preserve water-related resources of
the Nation.
investigations program
The fiscal year 2018 Budget provides $86 million in the
Investigations account, and $3 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account to evaluate and design projects within the Corps
three main mission areas and for related work, including some research
and development. The Budget also supports the Corps planning and
technical assistance programs, including using its expertise to help
local communities increase their resilience to, and preparedness for,
flood risks such as the flood risks in coastal communities.
construction program
The Budget provides $1.02 billion for the construction program in
the Construction account, and $108 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account, prioritizing projects with a high net economic,
environmental and safety return to the Nation per dollar invested, as
well as projects that address a significant risk to safety.
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps uses
objective performance measures to allocate this funding. For projects
that are being funded primarily due to their economic return, these
include benefit-to-cost ratios. For projects funded on the basis of
their environmental return, priority is given to those projects that
are highly effective at restoring degraded structures, functions or
processes of aquatic ecosystems on a cost- effective basis as well as
mitigation or environmental requirements. The selection process also
prioritizes investments, on a risk informed basis, in dam safety
assurance, seepage control, static instability correction work at dams
that the Corps owns and operates.
operation and maintenance (o&m) program
All structures age and can deteriorate over time, causing a
potential decline in reliability. As stewards of a large portfolio of
water resources infrastructure, we are working to ensure that its key
features continue to provide appropriate levels of service to the
American people.
The Corps is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
its operation and maintenance program. The Budget focuses on
investments that address infrastructure maintenance needs on a risk
assessment basis. In fiscal year 2018, the Corps will further expand
the implementation of a modern asset management program, dedicating an
increased amount of its O&M funding to the key features of its
infrastructure and for work that will reduce long-term O&M costs in
real terms. The Budget also supports an energy sustainability program
and pursues efficiencies in the acquisition and operation of our
information technology.
The Budget for the operation and maintenance program provides $3.1
billion in the O&M account, and $142 million in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries account, with a focus on the operation and maintenance
of key commercial navigation, flood risk management, hydropower and
other facilities. The Budget gives priority to coastal ports and inland
waterways with high levels of commercial traffic, and includes $965
million for work financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
The Budget also funds some small ports, including an emphasis on those
that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, or public
transportation benefits. The Budget provides O&M funding for safety
improvements at the dams and levees that the Corps owns and operates
based on the risk and consequence of a failure. According to our
analyses, 297 of the 715 dams in our current inventory have either
already had some form of modification, or an interim risk reduction
measure, or may require them over the next 50 years, if they are to
continue to serve their authorized purposes. Additional measures are
considered and evaluated as new and existing issues are identified.
Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or
operated by the Corps, including administrative buildings and
laboratories. Work to be accomplished includes: operation of locks and
dams along the inland waterways; dredging of inland and coastal Federal
channels; operating multi-purpose dams and reservoirs for flood risk
reduction, hydropower, recreation, and related purposes; maintenance
and repair of facilities; monitoring of completed projects; and general
management of Corps facilities and the land associated with these
purposes including work to serve as a responsible steward of the
resources on Corps lands.
The fiscal year 2018 Budget provides $243 million in the O&M
account for hydropower activities in order to maintain basic power
components such as generators, turbines, transformers and circuit
breakers at Corps hydropower facilities to keep them operating
efficiently and effectively. The Corps is the largest hydropower
producer in the U.S., operating 24 percent of the Nation's hydropower
capacity.
reimbursable program
Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS)
Reimbursable Program, the Corps assists other Federal agencies, State,
local, Tribal governments, and those of other countries with timely,
cost-effective solutions. These agencies can turn to the Corps, which
already has these capabilities, rather than develop their own internal
workforce and expertise to act as their design and construction agent.
Such intergovernmental cooperation is effective for agencies and the
taxpayer, and uses the skills and talents that we bring from our Civil
Works and Military Missions programs.
The work is principally technical oversight and management of
engineering, environmental, and construction projects. The the work
itself is typically performed by private sector firms and is financed
by the agencies we service. IIS Reimbursable Program activities in
support of our domestic stakeholders totaled $1.04 billion in fiscal
year 2016. We only accept agency requests that are consistent with our
core technical expertise, in the national interest, and that can be
executed without impacting our primary mission areas.
emergency management
The fiscal year 2018 Budget provides $35 million in funding for the
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to enable the Corps to
prepare for emergency operations in response to natural disasters. The
Budget for the emergency management program also includes $5.5 million
for the National Emergency Preparedness Program--an increase of $1
million from prior years.
An additional $3 million is included in the Investigations account
for the Corps participation in the development and expansion of
intergovernmental teams, known as Silver Jackets, which collaboratively
reduce the risks associated with flooding and other natural hazards.
The Silver Jackets program is an innovative program, which provides a
national forum to address State and local flood risk management
priorities. Each team is developed at the State level. The teams share
lessons learned at the State level with each other, and each team works
to apply the available Federal and State resources effectively to meet
its State's flood risk management priorities. There are now 48 active
teams (47 States and the District of Columbia); our goal is to have a
Silver Jackets team for every State. The Flooplain Management Program
of the Corps complements this effort by providing technical assistance.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2018 Budget represents a continuing, fiscally
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
restoration of its aquatic ecosystems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is committed to a performance-based Civil Works Program, based on
innovative, resilient, and sustainable risk-informed solutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. This concludes my
statement. I look forward to answering any questions you or other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, sir.
And welcome to the emerging leaders. We hope being exposed
to sausage making in this stage of their careers does not
discourage them, but we welcome and appreciate their
leadership.
Mr. Lamont.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS W. LAMONT, SENIOR OFFICIAL
PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Mr. Lamont. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Feinstein, Chairman Cochran, and subcommittee Members.
My name is Doug Lamont. I am the Senior Official performing
the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works.
Thank you, Chairman Alexander and distinguished Members for
the opportunity to present the President's budget for the Civil
Works program in the Army Corps of Engineers.
I am honored to be here with General Semonite, our Chief of
Engineers and to also be a former 32 year member of the Corps
of Engineers myself.
This year's Civil Works budget reflects the
Administration's priorities through targeted investments that
will reduce the flood impacts to our communities, facilitate
waterborne transportation, restore aquatic ecosystems, and
support American jobs.
The budget prioritizes funding for operations and
maintenance of water resources infrastructure by providing $3.1
billion in the Operations and Maintenance account, and $142
million for operation and maintenance in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries program.
Funding for maintaining commercial navigation, flood and
storm damage reduction, and hydropower projects are informed by
assessments that are risk-based on project condition and on the
consequences of failure.
The budget includes $765 million for operations and
maintenance of inland navigation projects, and $654 million for
operation and maintenance of Flood Risk Management Projects,
excluding the remaining items. These funding levels will enable
continued reduction of unscheduled lock closures due to
preventable mechanical breakdowns and reduce flood risk at our
Flood Risk Management Projects.
The budget provides $965 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and related
work, which is the highest amount ever budgeted.
The budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
of tools and approaches to working with local communities,
whether this means building, funding our projects with our cost
share partners, or providing planning assistance and technical
expertise to help communities make better informed decisions.
Other funded Corps efforts include mitigation of impacts to
fish in the Columbia River Basin and priority work on the Upper
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
I look forward to working with the Committee to advance the
Army's Civil Works program.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to
express my appreciation for Mr. Let Mon Lee here, who is
retiring on July 3 after 39 years of Federal service. My
appreciation to Let Mon.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas W. Lamont, P.E.
Thank you Chairman Alexander and distinguished members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to present the President's Budget for
the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2018. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2018 for the Civil Works
program of the Army Corps of Engineers funds the development,
restoration, and protection of the Nation's water, wetlands, and
related resources, through studies, construction, and operation and
maintenance of projects, the Corps regulatory program, the cleanup of
certain sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early atomic
weapons development program, and emergency response preparedness. The
Budget focuses on high performing work within the three main water
resources missions of the Corps: commercial navigation, flood and storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The Civil Works program, which this Budget supports, relies on
strong relationships between the Corps and local communities; these
strong relationships allow us to work together to meet water resources
needs across all of our missions.
The Budget provides $5.002 billion in discretionary funding for the
Civil Works program, including approximately $2.098 billion to support
commercial navigation; $1.37 billion for flood and storm damage
reduction; and $335 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration. Of these
amounts, $965 million would be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund and $26 million would be derived from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund.
The Budget prioritizes funding to operate and maintain water
resources infrastructure by providing $3.1 billion in the Operation and
Maintenance account, and $142 million for operation and maintenance in
the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. Our funding allocations
for the maintenance of commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and hydropower projects are informed by assessments of risk
based on project condition and the consequences of a failure.
The Budget includes $765 million for operation and maintenance of
inland navigation projects and $654 million for operation and
maintenance of flood risk management projects, excluding remaining
items. These funding levels will enable continued reduction of
unscheduled lock closures due to preventable mechanical breakdowns and
reduced risk at flood risk management projects.
The Budget provides $965 million to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to maintain coastal channels and related
work, which is the highest amount ever budgeted, consisting of $923
million from the Operation and Maintenance account, $5 million from the
Mississippi River & Tributaries account, and $37 million from the
Construction account.
The Budget provides $1.020 billion in the Construction account, and
$108 million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account
prioritizing projects with a high net economic, environmental, and
safety return to the Nation. The Budget continues to include efficient
funding for the Olmsted Locks and Dam project at $175 million and
proposes a new user fee to produce additional revenue to help finance
future inland waterways navigation capital investments to support
economic growth. This is necessary because the current excise tax on
diesel fuel used in inland waterways commerce will not produce the
revenue needed to cover anticipated future investment needs.
The Budget also includes $299 million (including $34 million for
the Dam Safety remaining item) for the dam safety program. When coupled
with anticipated unobligated carryover balances on these important
projects, this funding will enable the Corps to evaluate and implement
effective risk reduction strategies at our dams where needed.
The Budget provides $86 million in funding for the Investigations
account, and $3 million for investigations in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account.
The Budget focuses on bringing ongoing studies to a conclusion. The
Budget funds to completion 26 ongoing feasibility studies and includes
$15 million for Floodplain Management Services and $5 million for the
Planning Assistance to States program to provide local communities with
technical and planning assistance to enable them to reduce their flood
risk, with emphasis on non-structural approaches.
All feasibility studies funded in the Budget have signed
Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreements, and have developed a plan that
outlines their scope, schedule, and cost, which has been agreed upon by
the District, Division, Corps Headquarters, and the local sponsor.
The Budget also includes funds to complete the Loxahatchee River
Watershed Study within the South Florida Everglades Restoration
program.
Lastly, the Budget includes a proposed provision to divest the
Washington Aqueduct. The Washington Aqueduct is the only local water
supply system in the Nation owned and operated by the Corps. Ownership
of local water supply is best carried out by State or local government
or the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory
incentives. The proposal to eliminate the Corps' role in local water
supply and increase the State/local/private sector's role would
encourage a more efficient allocation of economic resources and
mitigate risk to taxpayers.
Thank you all for inviting me to attend today on behalf of the
Administration. General Semonite will provide further remarks on the
Army Civil Works 2018 Budget.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mikkelsen, welcome.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN MIKKELSEN, ACTING COMMISSIONER
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Feinstein, and Chairman Cochran, Members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the
President's budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
I am Alan Mikkelsen, Acting Commissioner.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2018 budget allocates funds to
projects and programs based on objective performance based
criteria. This allows us to most effectively administer
Reclamation's responsibilities for our water and power
infrastructure in the west.
By doing so, the Bureau has become a leader in efforts to
improve western water management, confront growing imbalances
in water supply and demand, address past environmental harms,
and engage in efforts to adapt to increased uncertainty.
Our budget continues to emphasize the following principles.
First, share responsibility through collaborative partnerships
with non-Federal partners.
Second, merit-based funding through the awarding of grants
and contracts based on published criteria. The selection of
awards is guided by high quality evidence-based research and
performance measures.
Third, the importance of increased storage capacity. The
Bureau recognizes the important goal of increasing and
improving storage where it is both feasible and where there is
significant stakeholder support.
I believe we will continue to do great things if this
budget is funded.
Let me take a moment to provide you with an understanding
and an overview of some of the exciting projects that we have
underway.
In our Great Plains region, home to Senators Hoeven and
Tester, we continue collaborating with our stakeholders to
manage, develop, and protect water resources throughout the
region, as well as promote drought resiliency.
Reclamation also continues to provide safe and reliable
drinking water to Native American Tribes and rural communities.
Moreover, through our rural water program, Reclamation has
helped these communities build the foundation for future
economic development and job creation.
In the Upper Colorado region, home to Senator Udall, we
request funding for two Indian water rights settlement
projects, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project and the Aamodt
Litigation Settlement.
These settlements provide permanent water supplies by
building and improving the water systems for sustainable
municipal, industrial, and domestic water supplies in these
communities. And of course, the Upper Colorado is home to Glen
Canyon Dam and beautiful Lake Powell.
The Lower Colorado region encompasses the Lower Colorado
River Basin that is home to Hoover Dam and includes some of
Senator Feinstein's State of California.
Given the ongoing drought in the southwest, the priority
focus here is the annual delivery of 7.5 million acre feet of
water to Arizona, California, and Nevada and another 1.5
million acre feet to New Mexico. Nearly 80 percent of this
region's budget is either paid for directly by our partners or
through the sale of hydropower generation.
In addition to struggling with the worst drought in more
than 100 years, the region is looking at additional ways to
assist California with their implementation of other important
water irrigation and conservation infrastructures, particularly
around the Salton Sea area.
The mid-Pacific region--home to the rest of Senator
Feinstein's State and a part of Senator Merkley's Oregon--has
suffered from its own unique set of drought-related problems.
Recent precipitation has alleviated some emergency water supply
issues, but one good year will not solve all problems related
to a multiyear drought.
Additionally, recent heavy rains have caused flooding
concerns and have highlighted the importance of maintaining
Reclamation's infrastructure. The region works with a diverse
group of stakeholders to implement water solutions with the
goal of balancing human and environmental needs for water.
Finally, there is the Pacific Northwest region, home to
Grand Coulee Dam, one of the largest hydropower facilities in
the world. This region encompasses Senator Murray's Washington,
the rest of Senator Merkley's Oregon, and Idaho.
Our focus here for the coming year will be on the continued
construction of the Cle Elum Fish Passage as part of Washington
State's Yakama Integrated Plan, as well as continuing to manage
and develop the Columbia Basin project, one of the Nation's
most critical sources for sustained agriculture.
Moreover, Reclamation's Safety of Dams work, which is
ongoing in Oregon's Scoggins, Hyatt, and Howard Prairie Dams
remain critical to the Bureau's overall mission and ensures our
ability to store water and generate hydropower for future
generations.
Additionally, Reclamation provides continued flood control,
forecasting, water conservation activities related to the
authorized use of water, pest management, environmental audits,
and recreational management for areas of Bureau lands within
all of our areas.
Finally, we will implement multiple biological opinion
actions as part of the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery
as well as in California operating under various authorities.
These actions support ecosystem restoration and enhanced
Reclamation's initiatives in the area of environmental
recovery.
I again thank the committee and am prepared to answer
questions you have about the Bureau's fiscal year 2018 budget
request.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Mikkelsen
Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and
members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you
the President's fiscal year 2018 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
I am Alan Mikkelsen, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2018 Budget sustains Reclamation's
efforts to deliver water and generate hydropower, consistent with
applicable State and Federal law, in a cost-efficient and
environmentally responsible manner. It also supports the Administration
and Department of the Interior (Department) goals of ensuring the
efficient generation of energy, provision of secure water supplies,
varied use of our resources, celebration of America's recreation
opportunities, and fulfilling our commitments to tribal nations.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2018 budget allocates funds to projects
and programs based on objective, performance-based criteria to most
effectively administer responsibilities for our water and power
infrastructure in the West. It has been said that Reclamation is a
leader in efforts to improve western water management, confront growing
imbalances in water supply and demand, address environmental effects of
its projects, engage in efforts to adapt to increased uncertainty, and
manage water-supply risk and public safety.
Our budget request continues this year to emphasize the following
two principles:
--First, Shared Responsibility through collaborative partnerships
with non-Federal partners, and
--Second, Merit-Based Funding through the awarding of grants and
contracts based on published criteria. The selection of awards
is guided by high-quality, evidence-based research and
performance measures.
Reclamation is requesting a net total of $1,056,017,000 in
discretionary appropriations, which is anticipated to be leveraged by
approximately $850 million in other Federal and non-Federal funds for
fiscal year 2018. This reflects a decrease of 13.1 percent from the
fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution total discretionary
funding of $1,262,596,000. Of the total, $960,017,000 is for the Water
and Related Resources account, which is Reclamation's largest account;
$59,000,000 is for the Policy and Administration account; $37,000,000
is for the California Bay Delta Restoration account; and $41,376,000 is
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
Reclamation's mission is to deliver water and power in an
economically and environmentally sustainable manner in the interest of
the American public. As such, it has designed the infrastructure it
manages to account for future uncertainties related to water supplies,
competing water needs, and significant variability in weather
conditions from year to year. The robustness of the water system is
tested through droughts and floods. Historically high precipitation
throughout much of the Western United States--in particular in
California during late 2016 and early 2017--is providing for a much
improved outlook for water supplies as compared to recent drought
stricken years. Even during these times there remain portions of the
West that are still abnormally dry or in moderate drought.
Additionally, long-term impacts from droughts and multi-year droughts,
such as those in the Colorado River Basin, are not recovered in a
single wet year.
Hydropower production is vulnerable to altered water availability
resulting from weather variation.Reclamation must be in a position to
manage through drought. Additionally, Reclamation must ensure that its
infrastructure can appropriately handle the wet period and floods
currently being experienced. The investments described in Reclamation's
fiscal year 2018 budget will further these efforts.
Reclamation's dams, water conveyances, and power generating
facilities are integral components of the Nation's infrastructure.
Effectively managing the benefits provided by these structures is among
the many significant challenges that Reclamation faces, over the next 5
years and beyond, in its ability to achieve progress in the areas of
certainty, sustainability and resiliency with respect to water
supplies. Increasing population and competing demands are increasingly
impacting already strained systems. Reclamation's water and power
projects and activities throughout the western United States are not
only foundational for essential and safe water supplies for both
agricultural and municipal and industrial purposes, but also provide
renewable energy in the form of hydropower, and sustain ecosystems that
support fish and wildlife, recreation, and rural economies.
Reclamation's budget includes a substantial request for Indian
water rights settlements, continuing the high priority of this program
to meet trust and treaty obligations. With the passage of the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (Public Law 114-322)
(WIIN), the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement will require significant
funding in order to meet the settlement's enforcement date of January
21, 2025. The fiscal year 2018 Budget includes $10 million for this
settlement.
Reclamation is continuing its efforts to strengthen its evidence-
based decisionmaking in various program components. This includes the
WaterSMART program, science and technology, precipitation variability
adaptation strategies, and the improved planning of future Indian water
rights settlements. This effort demonstrates the effectiveness,
efficiency, and innovation of in Reclamation programs.
Reclamation's projects and programs are foundational to driving and
maintaining economic growth in hundreds of river basins throughout the
western States. Reclamation manages water for agricultural, municipal
and industrial use and also provides flood control and recreation for
millions of people. Reclamation operates 53 hydroelectric power plants
that account for 15 percent of the hydroelectric capacity and
generation in the United States. Annually, Reclamation generates 37
billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to meet the annual needs
of over 3.5 million households, and collects over $1.0 billion in gross
revenues for the Federal government. Reclamation's activities,
including recreation benefits, provide an economic contribution of
$48.1 billion, and support approximately 388,000 jobs.
This budget is focused on meeting the Secretary's priorities on
sharing and multi-use of our nation's natural resources. This is
balanced with fulfilling Indian water rights obligations, creating
jobs, ecosystem restoration in the California Bay-Delta and San Joaquin
River, and maintaining sustainable, secure water supplies. In order to
meet Reclamation's mission goals, its programs must build a better
understanding of our resources and the protection and restoration of
the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by its operations.
Ecosystem restoration involves a large number of activities, including
Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery programs and river
restoration projects, which directly address the environmental aspects
of the Reclamation mission.
account level details
The fiscal year 2018 budget for Reclamation totals $1.097 billion
in gross budget authority. The budget is partially offset by
discretionary receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
($41.4 million) resulting in net discretionary budget authority of
$1.056 billion.
water and related resources--$960,017,000
The fiscal year 2018 Water and Related Resources budget provides
funding for five major program activities--Water and Energy Management
and Development ($313.7 million), Land Management and Development
($44.2 million), Fish and Wildlife Management and Development ($153.0
million), Facility Operations ($296.0 million), and Facility
Maintenance and Rehabilitation ($153.2 million). The funding proposed
in Reclamation's fiscal year 2018 Budget supports key programs
important to the Department and in line with Administration objectives.
These programs include:
Infrastructure: The proposed budget includes $51.7 million for
various Extraordinary Maintenance projects and activities across
Reclamation. This budget is central to mission objectives of operating
and maintaining projects to ensure delivery of water and power
benefits. Reclamation's Extraordinary Maintenance budget is part of its
overall Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments,
condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment,
and strategic collaboration to continue to improve the management of
its assets and deal with its aging infrastructure challenges.
Reclamation seeks to strategically leverage this budget; additional
Extraordinary Maintenance items are directly funded by revenues,
customers, or other Federal agencies.
Dam Safety: The safety and reliability of Reclamation dams is one
of Reclamation's highest priorities. The Dam Safety Program is critical
to effectively manage risks to the downstream public, property,
projects, and natural resources. The $88.1 million requested for the
Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program provides for risk
management activities at Reclamation's high and significant hazard dams
where loss of life or significant economic damage would likely occur if
the dam were to fail. The budget also includes preconstruction and
construction activities for several ongoing and planned Dam Safety
modifications. In addition, funding is included in Reclamation's budget
for the Department of the Interior's Dam Safety Program.
Reclamation utilizes the Safety of Dams Act to address dam safety
issues related to new hydrologic, seismic or change in state-of-the-art
design and construction practices. Approximately 50 percent of
Reclamation's dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and approximately
90 percent of the dams were built before currently used state-of-the-
art design and construction practices were put in place. Continued safe
performance is paramount and requires an emphasis on the risk
management activities provided by the program.
Reclamation's efforts to address the West's water challenges are
also accomplished through the WaterSMART program--Sustain and Manage
America's Resources for Tomorrow. At $59.1 million, WaterSMART helps to
achieve sustainable water management and maintain economic productivity
in the western United States. It addresses current and future water
shortages, including drought; degraded water quality; increased demands
for water and power from growing populations and energy needs;
amplified recognition of environmental water requirements; and the
potential for decreased water supply availability due to hydrologic
variability.
In order to fully support the 17 Western States, ecosystem
restoration is a key underpinning of Reclamation's mission. Ecosystem
restoration involves a number of Reclamation's activities, including
Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly
address the environmental aspects of the Reclamation mission. Other
programs that contribute towards this objective include the Columbia/
Snake River Salmon Recovery Program, the Middle Rio Grande Project
Collaborative Program and the Multi-Species Conservation Program within
the Lower Colorado River Operations Program.
Tribal Nations: Reclamation supports tribal nations through a
number of its projects and programs that range from endangered species
recovery, to rural water supply, to performing its role, as designated
by Congress and the Secretary of the Interior, in implementation of
enacted water rights settlements. Reclamation also strives to improve
coordination and application of expertise to analyze potential Indian
water settlements more effectively and expediently. fiscal year 2018
funding will strengthen Department-wide capabilities in the Secretary's
Indian Water Rights Office to achieve an integrated and systematic
approach to Indian water rights negotiations to consider the full range
of economic, legal, and technical attributes of proposed settlements.
The fiscal year 2018 budget requests discretionary funds to
continue the implementation of two of the four Indian Water Rights
Settlements enacted in December 2010 (Crow and Aamodt), as well as the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project authorized in 2009. In addition,
Reclamation proposes including $10.0 million as the first contribution
for the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement enacted in December 2016.
fiscal year 2016 appropriations completed discretionary funding
requirements for the Taos settlement and mandatory funds will be used
to implement the White Mountain Apache settlement authorized in the
Claims Resolution Act. Funding to support tribal nations is also
included within a number of projects, including the Mni Wiconi Project
for required tribal operation and maintenance ($13.5 million), the Nez
Perce Settlement within Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery
Project ($6.2 million), the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Settlement
Act ($1.6 million), and the Ak Chin Indian Water Rights Settlement Act
($16.2 million).
Research and Development: Reclamation has identified several key
areas for investment where coordination with other Departmental bureaus
will leverage results to more effectively achieve mission outcomes.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2018 budget for research and development
(R&D) programs include both Science and Technology, and Desalination
and Water Purification--both of which focus on Reclamation's mission of
water and power deliveries. Scientific and engineering innovation
promotes sustainable economic growth and job creation, supports
maintaining and improving our water and power infrastructure, spurs
continued production of energy resources, sustains reliable water and
power delivery to our customers, improves safety, limits the impacts of
invasive species and ensures we can meet our environmental compliance
responsibilities. These activities support the Administration's
priorities for the fiscal year 2018 Budget, including job creation by
supporting technology transfer activities that lead to new business
opportunities for private industry. The program is also supporting
research to address Administration priorities related to maintaining
and improving our water and power infrastructure by partnering with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to foster research projects to develop
technologies that extend the operating life and reduce maintenance
costs of Reclamation's structures. The Administration priority related
to energy from all sources is supported by research that ensures we are
maximizing reliability, reducing maintenance costs, and exploring new
energy development opportunities. Research on safety is ensuring our
workers can perform their jobs safely and securely with some projects
supported through partnership with the Office of Naval Research. The
Desalination and Water Purification program priorities include
development of improved and innovative methods of desalination,
incorporating efficient water-energy nexus solutions into desalination
processes, and reducing the costs in order to expand new water supplies
in a sustainable manner and thereby relieve stress on drought stricken
communities, Western rural communities, Native Americans, and Western
river basins. The research and testing funded out of this program
supports the Administration's priorities for the fiscal year 2018
Budget, including job creation by supporting innovative new solutions
that spur the creation of new businesses by entrepreneurs and advances
our competitive edge in the area of water treatment and desalination.
central valley project restoration fund (cvprf)--$41,376,000
This fund was established by the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act, Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. The budget of
$41.4 million is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts
totaling $41.4 million, which is the maximum amount that can be
collected from project beneficiaries under provisions of Section
3407(d) of the Act. The discretionary receipts are adjusted on an
annual basis to maintain payments totaling $30.0 million (October 1992
price levels) on a 3-year rolling average basis. The reduction is the
result of the 3-year rolling average provision and the lower
collections scheduled in fiscal year 2018. The budget of $41.4 million
for the CVPRF was developed after considering the effects of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11, March 30,
2009) which redirects certain fees, estimated at $2.0 million in fiscal
year 2018, collected from the Friant Division water users to the San
Joaquin Restoration Fund.
california bay-delta restoration fund--$37,000,000
The 2004 California Bay-Delta Restoration Act authorized multiple
Federal agencies to participate in the implementation of the California
Federal (CALFED) Bay-Delta Program as outlined in the August 28, 2000,
Record of Decision (ROD) for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report. This
legislation directed the implementing agencies to undertake a set of
broadly described programmatic actions identified in the ROD to the
extent authorized under existing law. In addition, the Act authorized
$389.0 million in Federal appropriations for new and expanded
authorities. The Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act
(Public Law 114-322) dated December 16, 2016 reauthorized the CALFED
Bay Delta Authorization Act through fiscal year 2019.
The fiscal year 2018 Budget of $37.0 million implements
Reclamation's priority activities pursuant to the Act. This budget
supports actions in the Interim Federal Action Plan under the following
program activities: $2.2 million for Renewed Federal State Partnership,
$4.7 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $30.1 million to
address the Degraded Bay Delta Ecosystem.
policy and administration--$59,000,000
The $59 million budget will be used to: 1) develop, evaluate, and
direct implementation of Reclamation-wide policy, rules, and
regulations, including actions under the Government Performance and
Results Modernization Act; and 2) manage and perform functions that are
not properly chargeable to specific projects or program activities
covered by a separate funding authority.
working capital fund--$0
This fund is operated for the purpose of managing financial
activities such as acquisition and replacement of capital equipment,
cost recovery for services provided to others, fleet management,
administration of information technology services, and recovery of
indirect costs in the Technical Service Center, Mission Support
Organization, and regional and area offices. The fund is credited with
appropriations and other funds for the purpose of providing or
increasing capital. The fund operates on a self-supporting basis
through user charges that are deposited in the fund. It is through the
Working Capital Fund that Reclamation pays for many Departmental
Centralized services.
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Mikkelsen.
TRIBUTE TO LET MON LEE
Before we turn to questions, Mr. Lamont, I want to thank
you for recognizing Mr. Let Mon Lee's impending retirement. He
is sitting right behind you there.
We understand he is about to retire in order to spend more
time with his family, especially his grandchildren. He has
played a very important role for the Corps and its relationship
with members of Congress, and we are grateful for that.
Mr. Lee, we thank you for your service to the United
States, and to this Committee, and best wishes in your
retirement.
Mr. Lee. Thank you.
[Applause.]
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Senator Alexander. Now Mr. Lamont, let me ask you about the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
We tried very hard the last few years to really do what a
great country would do for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Let
me just get the facts on the record.
In 2014, at the request of the barge owners, we increased
the fee on a gallon of gasoline from 20 cents to 29 cents per
gallon.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And increasing the fee has raised the
annual revenues to the Trust Fund by about $20 million a year
since 2014.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And since 2014, working with the Corps,
once we created the priority list of projects, Congress has
appropriated all of the tax money that we collected.
All of the estimated revenues, an average of about $106
million a year, have been used for four main projects: Olmsted
in Kentucky, Lower Monongahela in Pennsylvania, Kentucky Lock,
and Chickamauga Lock in Tennessee.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. The President's budget estimates the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund revenues, the taxes collected, for
the purpose of helping the locks for this next year, are $105
million dollars.
Is that right?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. Does the President's budget propose to
spend all the money that is collected to fix the locks?
Mr. Lamont. No, sir. Not at this time.
Senator Alexander. How much of the $105 million does the
budget propose to spend?
Mr. Lamont. Sir, again? Please.
Senator Alexander. How much of the $105 million that you
are collecting, that we will be collecting from the barge
owners in taxes to fix the locks, how much of that $105 million
does your budget propose to spend in 2018?
Mr. Lamont. We are going to be using $26.25 million.
Senator Alexander. So we are collecting $105 million in
taxes for the purpose of fixing the locks and we are only
spending $26 million for fixing the locks?
If you are not proposing to spend what we have, why would
the budget propose to increase the fee on Inland Waterway users
by $1 billion over 10 years? Why would you propose more fees
when you are not even proposing to spend what you currently
have?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to
clarify that.
Olmsted is the only project that is high performing, which
means it is budgetable and that, in essence means that the
Benefit Cost Ratio is greater than 2.5-to-1 at a 7 percent
discount rate.
Now, the other three remaining projects--Lower Monongahela,
Kentucky Lock, and Chickamauga Lock--have Benefit Cost Ratios
at the 7 percent discount rate that are less than that 2.5-to-1
criterion.
The problem here is that the remaining balance to complete
is over $10 billion. The Administration is concerned about the
age of the infrastructure on the inland waterway system and the
ability to effectively budget and effectively deal with the
need to rehab these systems.
Senator Alexander. So you are thinking of not completing
those three locks, those three projects?
Mr. Lamont. I would say that there is an opportunity to
discuss within the Administration and the opportunity to look
at these three additional locks.
Now the President was in Cincinnati, as you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, and the emphasis was on the four R's: roads, rail,
runways, and rivers. And I was very interested, as you all are,
on rivers.
Senator Alexander. Well, look, I am interested in rivers
too, which is why I am wondering why you are collecting $105
million from the barge owners and then not spending the money
for the purpose you collect it for.
Mr. Lamont. It is that $10 billion and how we are going to
not string it out, sir, but how we are going to be able to
hopefully work with the users and work with interested parties,
possibly with a P3 initiative, Public Private Partnership, to
have a method of attack that can actually deal with the problem
of the crumbling infrastructure and a way forward.
Senator Alexander. But for the last 3 years, Mr. Lamont, we
have prioritized the waterways, one through four or more. We
have raised taxes on the people who go through the locks. We
have appropriated all the money we needed to, to match that,
and the Corps has consistently told us that if you stop and
start these locks, it is wasteful and more expensive.
Why would you restart a lock for 3 years and then stop it?
Mr. Lamont. I agree as an engineer that is a difficult
thing to deal with given the funding constraints, and the
priorities of the Administration, and the budgeting criteria.
I have to say no matter what Administration, Republican or
Democrat, it goes back to 1992 as far as the ability to analyze
benefits and costs on water resources projects.
For a budgetary ability to go forward, the Benefit Cost
Ratio has to be greater than 2.5-to-1 at a 7 percent discount
rate.
Senator Alexander. Well, my time is up and I would like to
stick to the 5 minutes. We have lots of Senators who have
questions.
But I will be coming back to this subject, particularly the
way the Corps calculates its Benefit-Cost Ratio.
Senator Feinstein.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. Thank you.
NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question on new construction starts.
Mr. Lamont, the Corps' rationale for utilizing only one new
study start is that the Corps wants to prioritize ongoing
projects over new projects, as I understand it.
However, I noticed that the Corps' 2018 budget includes
$1.02 billion for construction. Now, that is the lowest level
of funding requested in 5 years at $856 million, or 46 percent
less, than the 2017 Omnibus provided.
If this Administration continues to emphasize only ongoing
work, how will the Corps be able to address new challenges that
arise from our infrastructure needs, because we have several of
them in California?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, Senator Feinstein.
We have limited resources. We have competing demands, many,
many demands across the Nation. And did you want to say
something? I am sorry.
Senator Feinstein. Well, if we put more money in that
account, would you adjust it accordingly?
Mr. Lamont. The President's budget put an emphasis on our
existing projects and there is $3.1 billion that is allocated
basically for operation and maintenance of our existing
projects. That left $1.02 billion for construction.
I understand your concerns relative to the ability to move
forward. The opportunity to move forward obviously looks at the
constraints that we are under relative to the President's
fiscal responsibilities and also deficit reduction.
The competing demands will be: do we add to the backlog of
authorized projects that may or may not compete? That gets back
to the 7 percent and the Benefit Cost Ratio criterion. Or, do
we focus our efforts on what is out there existing now? Trying
to make sure that we are putting money, the higher risk
elements, the Operations and Maintenance account, and then
focusing on completing construction diligently?
Senator Feinstein. Well, I mean, I listened to you. I
really do not know what it all means. It seems to me the
Congress has an ability, too, to add money and that we should.
I do not understand.
A 46 percent essential cut in new construction, if you are
going to build infrastructure in this country, you all do it in
the Army Corps. That is where it is at.
And not to have an opportunity to present a project, is
what you are saying, if I understand it. What you are saying
is, ``Do not bother. We are not going to do it.''
Is that right?
Mr. Lamont. No, Ma'am. Again, there are so many needs
across the Nation.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Lamont. There are such limited opportunities relative
to the discretionary funding that is available. I share your
concern wholeheartedly as to the ability to move forward here.
But again, the President's concern was what has already
been under study, for example, and through past work plans.
There were 16 studies that were commenced. This year with the
work plan, there was only one new study that was started.
So again, that is the focus on O and M and on construction.
Senator Feinstein. Got it.
Mr. Lamont. I wholeheartedly understand exactly what you
are saying.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that and we can talk more
about it. I hope you will be available.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Let me talk about another big problem. All the way down
through the Central Valley is subsidence of land caused by
overusing groundwater. In some places, we are told, that if
there were a big earthquake, the earth could drop 60 feet.
Having said that, there are cracks in the canal; there are
cracks in the freeways from this subsidence. And in one place,
the subsidence has reduced the water carrying capacity of the
Friant-Kern Canal by 60 percent, severely disrupting water
supply and groundwater recharge operations throughout the
Friant Division of the Central Valley Project.
Let me ask Mr. Mikkelsen this question. I know that you are
working on this. What resources and authorities does
Reclamation have or need to address this problem in both the
short and the long term?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
We are working. I think there is a, we are still trying to
allow the, I think the use is----
There is about $23.1 million, if I remember correctly, in
the restoration fund there that we believe can be used for
that. The problem is, that is not going to even come close to
touching what is needed for that subsidence problem.
I was out there 2 weeks ago. There is water literally
lapping at the bridges and we are down 30 percent capacity of
that canal in that particular area.
I would just make an observation, I guess, since I may not
have the opportunity to appear before this Committee again,
that the Reclamation Fund has a current balance of about $17
billion.
Senator Feinstein. We will talk later.
Senator Alexander. We have that problem, Senator Feinstein,
with the Harbor Management Trust Fund.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Senator Alexander. With that Fund as well, so we need some
creative financing.
Should I go on, Senator?
Senator Feinstein. I think my time is up.
Senator Alexander. We will try to come back, Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. With all the Senators here.
Senator Feinstein. No problem.
Senator Alexander. Senator Cochran.
MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
General Semonite, in 2005, Congress authorized the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out the Mississippi
Coastal Improvements program.
The program is intended to restore portions of the
Mississippi barrier islands in response to the damages caused
by Hurricane Katrina and to make the Gulf Coast more resilient
against damage from future storms through an array of
structural and nonstructural protection measures.
Congress appropriated $439 million for this effort in
fiscal year 2009 and it is my understand that the Corps has
made good progress toward executing important phases of the
project, particularly restoration work on Ship Island and Cat
Island.
The question is, can you provide me with a status update on
the Corps' recent activities on the Mississippi Coastal
Improvement program? Should Congress provide funding above the
fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Corps of Engineers? How
would you put those additional funds to use toward advancing
programs and progress on the Mississippi Coastal Improvements
Program?
General Semonite. Senator Cochran, thanks for the question.
I am not sure if you remember, but I was the Division
Commander in Atlanta from 2009 to 2012. I have made seven trips
down to see the area. I have been briefed several times and I
think it is an unbelievable program.
You talk about a portfolio of ways of being able to protect
the coastline. That project does exactly what we needed to do.
We made progress. You said that we made good progress. I
want to continue to keep pushing. Ship Island was awarded in
February of 2017. That contract, phase one, we are going to
close out that contract hopefully in September of 2017. It will
be completed. I am sorry, the work will begin in September of
2017 and will be done in May of 2018.
When you go to Cat Island, that restoration contract was
awarded a couple of months ago. Sand placement is scheduled to
begin on the Fourth of July, next week, and is scheduled to be
completed within 50 days. We expect the sand grasses to be done
sometime in November of 2017.
With respect to your question on future money, I think I
really need to go back in and get an assessment of: how does
the work this summer go? Did it go as we think we had planned?
We would like to think it would.
And then, what can I do to come back to you and say, ``How
would that be assessed based on the risk that is still out
there?'' As you know, some of that was buyouts. Some of that
was rebuilding the barrier islands. There were many, many
different types of things.
And so the question is, would we continue to be able to
allocate additional funds if we are not able to buy that risk
down enough?
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, General Semonite.
Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Cochran.
Senator Udall.
NEW MEXICO DROUGHT FUNDING
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to turn to another area on the BOR (Bureau of
Reclamation) spend plan that I am very confused about. This
Committee allocated $40 million in fiscal year 2017 to drought
in the American West leaving it to the Department of Interior
to direct the funding under the spend plan.
Drought in the American West deserves real attention,
funding, and creative solutions to address how we are going to
do more with less water in the era of climate change.
New Mexico feels the impacts of climate change and drought
at almost twice the rate of other States with every degree of
warming elsewhere, producing 2 degree of warming in the desert
southwest.
Yet, when you look at the list of investments the Bureau of
Reclamation makes in drought, the State of New Mexico is
conspicuously absent despite pressing need. There is a small
amount of funding the State is eligible for through the Upper
Colorado River operations, but this is really just drops in the
bucket for this investment. For the people of New Mexico, this
lack of investments is concerning.
Mr. Mikkelsen, will you, and the Bureau, commit to working
with me to ensure the drought funding for fiscal year 2017
addresses the needs of New Mexicans?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Yes, we will, Senator.
And I was out there just last week meeting with some of
your constituents and stakeholders.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Mikkelsen. And I look forward to working with you on
that.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and we appreciate your
visit.
REVIEW OF GRANTS
We also, I understand this Administration has implemented a
policy requiring all grants over $100,000 to be approved by the
Secretary's office.
Will you confirm that?
Mr. Mikkelsen. That is true at this time, but we have not
experienced any significant hold ups on any of the grant
applications that we have moved forward from the Bureau of
Reclamation.
I would note that these are performance-based grants, as I
noted in my oral testimony that are evaluated by an independent
panel that we put together. And I would encourage anybody from
any State--but particularly New Mexico, because of the arid
nature of your State--to please make application for those and
they will be acted on.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE WATER LEASING PROGRAM
A big priority of mine has been to support a voluntary
water leasing program on the Middle Rio Grande, something that
is supported by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the
Bureau, the Audubon, and other stakeholders in order to make
this water system function more efficiently for all of the
users.
The Bureau is very supportive of allocating $2 million of
its fiscal year 2017 operating money to this critical program
to lease water with this funding to restore system function.
Will you commit today to support this request from the
Albuquerque district and its partners, and to work with us to
make sure this innovative, voluntary program is successful?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Senator, we are working with all the parties
on that settlement, and we commit to continue to work with all
the parties.
We want to be able to move that settlement forward, as you
have noted, with those voluntary transfers of pre-1907 water
rights at this time. And, yes, we are moving forward on that.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
VILLAGE OF COLUMBUS FLOODING
Mr. Lamont and General Semonite, this year, the Federal
Government, in partnership with the New Mexico Border
Authority, broke ground on expanding and renovating the port of
entry in Columbus, New Mexico.
The Federal Government is investing $86 million to
modernize this facility to make sure customs and border patrol
has the necessary facilities to fulfill its mission of keeping
America's borders safe and secure, while facilitating
significant increases in the number of daily crossings due to
increased commercial and agricultural trade, and private
vehicle, and pedestrian traffic.
Unfortunately, the Columbus port of entry has been subject
to reoccurring flooding over the years. And so, as I understand
it, the Albuquerque district office submitted this project as
its top priority for fiscal year 2017 work plan. The neap is
complete, yet the project did not receive any funding to build
the berms.
Will you commit to work with me in this budget cycle to
make sure we are not leaving an $86 million Federal investment
in our national security infrastructure unprotected from
flooding in the village of Columbus, New Mexico?
General Semonite. Senator, we are certainly aware of that.
I need to get into the details as far as why that did not have
more justification in the budget. I will work with Mr. Lamont
to be able to understand what that requirement was.
I do not have exact details right now to be able to give
you a better answer.
Senator Udall. Yes. Well, this was the Albuquerque
district's number one request.
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. I hope you understand that.
General Semonite. Although there might be a number one
priority in one of my 43 districts, it might not necessarily
rack and stack as a national priority.
So we certainly will continue to follow up and do
everything we can to try to make sure that it has all the
justification to be able to compete well for funding.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Udall.
Senator Shelby.
MOBILE HARBOR DEEPENING AND WIDENING
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, the Port of Mobile in my State of Alabama is
currently the tenth largest U.S. seaport by total volume. The
Port's largest commodities are coal, crude oil, steel, and
petroleum. And its activities, as you probably well know,
employ over 150,000 people in my State and generate over $23.4
billion direct and indirect in economic value.
In any given year, millions of tons of cargo move through
the Port of Mobile and that number is continuing to grow. It is
one of the fastest growing ports around.
In 2014, the Port Authority submitted a request to the Army
Corps of Engineers to consider increasing the depth and the
width of the Mobile harbor channel to its authorized
dimensions. You are very familiar with this.
The Corps subsequently began a General Reevaluation Report,
GRR, which examines potential costs and benefits associated
with the deepening and the widening of the port. This study is
expected to conclude, as I understand it, in 2019.
General, can you provide an update for us today on the
Mobile GRR and is the study on schedule?
General Semonite. Senator, first of all, again, I was the
Division Commander down in Atlanta. I know that port very, very
well. I have done port deepening from Boston all the way down
to Houston.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
General Semonite. And I am very, very aware of the
mechanics.
First of all, there is a lot of potential in the Port of
Mobile, without a doubt. You mentioned it is tenth up there. We
look at all the different things that are in this. There is a
lot of growth in commerce.
You mentioned how many tons. It is not just tons of cargo.
It is how many containers and the substantial amount of growth.
You are up 14 percent this year in the amount of containers.
Jobs are another big thing that is out there, 128,000 jobs,
$500 million in direct and indirect tax input.
So we see the potential of not only that port, but other
port deepenings, just as the Chairman said. The economy here is
at unbelievable potential.
The other thing that is always important in a port
deepening project is to figure out: who else has skin in the
game? Is it only the Port Authority or has the State stepped
up? Who else has stepped up when it comes to road
infrastructure and the railroad pieces? Are the cranes in
place? What about when it comes to development for warehouses
and all the rest?
And Mobile Port, very similar to some of those other ones
that are very, very competitive, continues to be able to put
skin in the game. We see a lot of potential in that port.
You were right about the GRR. The GRR is actually on
schedule to be completed in November of 2019. I said in my
opening statement, deliver the program. That does not just mean
build the concrete and steel. It means if we owe you a study,
then we owe you to get that study done on time. And if we
cannot for some reason, we certainly owe you the ability to be
able to understand where the obstacles are in it, so we can
come back.
I am committed to be able to make sure that if, in fact,
somewhere that gets off track, then I will come back. And I
would love to think we could do it earlier than that, but I
cannot promise that. We are going to be as aggressive as we
can.
Senator Shelby. General, it is imperative, for economic
reasons, that in the U.S.--not only deepen the port I am
bringing up in Mobile, but others and widening them, whatever
we have to do--to be in the 21st century of commerce?
Is that correct?
General Semonite. It is certainly my opinion that there is
unbelievable potential in port deepenings and not only the
deepening, but the ability to get the channel widened.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
General Semonite. These large shippers are going to go
where it is the best business for them. If they have wait
times, if they have to wait for the tides to go up and down, if
it is too hard to get in there, if they cannot turn, or if they
do not have the right turning basin. All of that is going to
then require them to go somewhere else.
So we want to be able to optimize those ports that really
have the potential to be national capabilities and Mobile is
certainly one of those.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Secretary Lamont, Section 110--you are familiar with all of
this probably by the numbers--of the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 provides that the cost of
the Mobile GRR, that I just referenced, will be 75 percent
Federal and 25 percent non-Federal.
However, it is my understanding that the Corps has ignored
this provision budget in the Mobile GRR in 2015, fiscal 2016
and 2017 at the 50/50 cost share, and not including the budget
line in the fiscal year 2018 request.
Your staff has informed my staff that the reason Mobile's
GRR budget line was not included in the 2018 budget request is
because the project is hitting the so-called 50/50 threshold.
Can you explain why the Corps, if you know on your own, is
disregarding the Federal statute in their budgeting request?
Mr. Lamont. Senator Shelby, I do not think there is any
deliberate attempt to ignore the law.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Lamont. What I would like to do is----
Senator Shelby. Because you have to follow the law like we
all do, right?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Lamont. But what I would like to do is to look at this
a little bit further.
Senator Shelby. Get back with me on it.
Mr. Lamont. And work with you and your staff.
Senator Shelby. Okay. That would be fine. I just know that
I am not above the law and you are not above the law. Nobody
should be, and that is what we preach, and that is what we
believe.
Is it not?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Coons.
DELAWARE RIVER DEEPENING
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander and
Ranking Member Feinstein.
And thank you Lieutenant General Semonite, Mr. Lamont, and
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you for being here today and thank you for
all the Army Corps and Bureau of Reclamation do for our
country, and in particular, for what the Army Corps does for my
home State of Delaware.
Lieutenant General Semonite, given your time in New York
City as Commander of the North Atlantic Division, I am pleased
you are familiar with the Delaware River Deepening Project and
the importance of coastal infrastructure.
I appreciate the reprogramming of funds for the Port of
Wilmington after they were initially left out of the fiscal
year 2017 work plan. They are critical for dredging our Port,
small but significant to us. I am pleased to see the fiscal
year 2018 budget includes funding for two dredge cycles for the
Port, so we can continue our 6 million tons of cargo delivered
and shipped every year.
I was glad to see the fiscal year 2017 work plan allows the
completion of the Delaware River Deepening from 40 to 45 feet,
as well as funds to re-nourish some of our critical beaches. I
understand the bids for the last phase of deepening are out
this week and our region is very much looking forward to having
that deeper channel.
I just want to take a moment and thank the Philadelphia
District of the Corps who have been wonderful to work with and
to particularly express my gratitude to Lieutenant Colonel Mike
Bliss, who is about to leave command. I am looking forward to
working with Lieutenant Colonel Kristen Dahle, his successor.
Lieutenant Colonel Bliss has been just terrific. And the men
and women of the Philadelphia District are creative,
responsive, and greatly appreciated in my office.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
Let me briefly ask three questions about the Dredge
McFarland, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and
infrastructure generally.
Federal funding has not been provided to the Delaware River
Basin Commission as required by the congressionally approved
compact for 20 of the last 21 years. There have been clear
congressional directives from this subcommittee, and in both
the 2014 and 2007 Water Resources Development Acts, that the
Federal Government should financially support the DRBC
(Delaware River Basin Commission) and the other two river basin
commissions and budget accordingly.
The Army Corps recently took the position that the Planning
Assistance to States Program meets that Federal funding
obligation. But these planning activities require a 50 percent
match from the river basin commissions. Rather than financially
supporting the river basin commission as required, I view this
as siphoning resources away from the commissions and then
sending it back to the Corps. I think it requires the
commissions to use a program that may not be appropriate for
their needs.
Can you or Mr. Lamont briefly explain why the Corps has not
allocated funds in this budget to the Delaware River Basin
Commission?
General Semonite. So sir, let me start out and I think Mr.
Lamont can certainly pick up if I miss something.
First of all, I was on the Delaware River Commission for 3
years.
Senator Coons. Yes.
General Semonite. I always use that as a model of how to do
a total integrated water package. Great people, very, very
focused.
You are right. For the last 21 years, there has always been
an expectation that the Federal Government would give cash in-
kind to be able to help offset the overhead costs of the DRBC
administrative work. That also applies to a couple of other
river commissions, Susquehanna, and some other ones. That has
not been funded.
I think what has been tried, in an effort to try to meet
the intent of that contribution, was an in-kind contribution.
And that is where this planning assistance to States has tried
to meet that.
I will let Mr. Lamont jump in if he wants to hit as to why
there was not a cash in-kind contribution, but I think that is
one of the challenges where we just have a lot of bills that
are on the table that do not necessarily come across the way
that you would want them to come across.
Senator Coons. I understand. We are going to run out of
time. So I will just be brief and move forward, if I can,
generally.
DREDGE MCFARLAND
Let me express support for the Dredge McFarland. Lieutenant
General Semonite, from your previous time in the North Atlantic
Division, you see the importance of a fleet of highly
responsive dredges. It benefits ports, not just Wilmington,
Delaware: New York, Norfolk, Jacksonville, and New Orleans. I
hope you will take timely steps to replace the oldest of the
dredges in the fleet, the McFarland.
ADMINISTRATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Let me ask you a last question, if I might.
President Trump has said he wants to make significant
investments in infrastructure, and I think many of us would
agree that should include investments in waterways and coastal
infrastructure.
Some of our budget requests for other departments and
agencies have so far not been encouraging with regard to
investments in infrastructure. Seaports handle 99 percent of
our overseas trade by volume, support 23 million jobs.
I would like to hear from you both, if I might, briefly,
how you envision the Corps' work on maintaining commercial
navigation infrastructure fitting into the Administration's
infrastructure plan? And how the Corps is budgeting for coastal
protection given rising sea levels and increasing storms as
referenced before by Senator Feinstein?
Mr. Lamont. Senator Coons, as I indicated to Senator
Feinstein, the needs in this country are just incredible as far
as water resource demands. With the crumbling infrastructure, I
would say this Administration sees the wake up call and I think
we all do.
The challenge will be with the limited funds that we have
to find a way forward, and there could possibly be initiatives,
as I indicated to Chairman Alexander, in the P3 area where
users have some potential skin in the game.
I do not know if General Semonite wants to add anything on.
General Semonite. Senator Coons, I think all of us in this
room understand the importance of water resources. I do worry,
and just as the Chairman said, some people think of
infrastructure as road, rivers, and rail.
Mr. Lamont and I, when we heard about the infrastructure
package, were aggressive to seek out the Administration, who is
putting this package together, fought our way to get into the
right rooms and to brief them on the requirement that the
Chairman talked about; 58 percent of infrastructure that is
over 50 years old.
We were able to say, not only are there great requirements
that our Nation has, but here are some things you could
streamline, some of those processes that do not necessarily
allow the most valid requirements to get the funds.
We have proposed a couple of options, and I think some of
the Senators in the room are aware of what we are looking at,
to try to find a better way of putting the dollars against the
requirements. Not because anybody has an agenda to do something
different, but some of the rules could, in fact, limit us on
meeting the most valid requirements.
Senator Coons. I appreciate your testimony and I hope we
will continue to work together as this committee always has on
a bipartisan basis to invest in America's water infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, to all of you, for coming today.
I am going to follow up on the Senator's last question
about the President's plans on infrastructure. I have read
about them with interest. Clearly, we need to improve our
infrastructure. We need to maintain our infrastructure.
How are we going to pay for that? Are you talking? I
understand talking about the need. That is important. But are
you talking about how? Is there a plan to pay for it?
Mr. Lamont. Senator Kennedy, a common theme here, I think,
not only with the Administration but also with the
Appropriations Committees of both houses of Congress.
We are at a crossroads, in my view, as far as the age of
our infrastructure and whether we are willing to step up to the
plate--the Federal Government, non-Federal entities--and really
take a hard look at this on the way forward.
Senator Kennedy. Well, it sounds to me, does the
Administration--this is what I am asking--does the
Administration have a proposal to pay for its infrastructure
plan that you are aware of?
Mr. Lamont. Senator Kennedy, as General Semonite just
indicated, I have a member of my staff, he has a member of his
staff actively working with the President's National Economic
Council at this very time.
We are looking collaboratively with the Administration on
opportunities that are out there because they realize the
crossroads we are at right now.
Let me add this: we have a ways to go as far as a bill that
you might see. We are at the talking stage.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I hear talk about P3, Mr. Secretary.
Those are not free. I mean, the private entities, the private
sector is not going to come in and do the project out of the
goodness of their heart. They have to be paid.
I mentioned this to Secretary Mnuchin the other day. I do
not know how many trillions of dollars we have sitting outside
of the United States because as soon as they bring the money
back under our non-territorial system of taxation, they are
going to be taxed on that money. Some of them have figured out
ways around that, which is perfectly legal.
But I think many of those companies would bring the money
back if we could reach some sort of resolution over what sort
of tax they would have to pay.
Now, that is nonrecurring revenue. You obviously do not
want to match up nonrecurring revenue with recurring expenses.
But infrastructure, water, maritime, that is not a recurring
expense.
I do not think Secretary Mnuchin liked my idea too much,
but I do not understand, and it may be a bad idea, but if we do
not want to do that, what are we going to do? Because my
constituents keep calling me going, ``I heard the President
talking about the infrastructure bill, and I have a road over
here. I want you to make sure you get it on the list.''
Senator Feinstein. Welcome to the Senate.
Senator Kennedy. So I am asking you, how are we going to
pay for it? What is wrong with the idea of using some of the
money that is offshore right now?
Mr. Lamont. Senator Kennedy, in my 40-plus years working
for the Corps of Engineers and with Army Civil Works.
Senator Kennedy. Have you been doing this 40 years?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, 40-plus.
Senator Kennedy. Now, you are going straight to heaven.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lamont. I have seen, as have you, in your lifetime the
crumbling infrastructure. I think we are at a point of
reckoning that, not only the Congress of the United States, but
the Administration, has come to a point where we really have to
look at this closely in collaboration with our partners,
Federal, non-Federal, folks who are stakeholders. And really
take a hard look and try to make a hard move on this.
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD CONTROL
Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you this, and I have 36
seconds.
One of the advantages of going last is that I get to hear
all of my colleagues. I learn a lot. I get to hear all of their
projects, and I appreciate that, and I can evaluate them. And I
have come to the conclusion that none of their projects is as
important as the one I am about to ask you about in Louisiana.
Tell me about where we are on the Southeast Louisiana Flood
Control Project?
Mr. Lamont. Senator Kennedy, I realize your concerns on
SELA (Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Damage Reduction
Project). I am going to commit to you that I want to work with
the senior leadership of the Corps and my office to explore all
possibilities on a way forward here.
I realize that work on SELA has progressed with the Katrina
Supplemental Funds.
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. I think what we are going to need to do is look
hard at potential funding options here. You have my commitment
to work with the Corps, and we will get back to you on that.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen, for your
service. Thank you, General. I enjoyed our visit.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.
INLAND WATERWAYS USER FEE
Before we go to Senator Hoeven, the budget document does
propose $1 billion increase over 10 years in user fee funding
for inland waterways, right, or for all waterways? Which?
Senator Kennedy. I thought it was all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamont. Sir, I apologize. I missed your question.
Senator Alexander. The budget document does propose $1
billion user fee increase over 10 years.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. For all waterways or just inland water?
Mr. Lamont. It is in its infant stages, it is an
opportunity to discuss this with Congress.
Senator Alexander. It is not part of the budget?
Mr. Lamont. There is no specific line item in the budget.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. You are correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. Usually I do not do this, but just
parenthetically. I like the idea of user fees, but before we
have a user fee appropriated, we need, (A), to have a plan and
(B), we need to spend what we are already collecting in taxes
for the purpose for which it is collected.
Senator Hoeven.
Mr. Lamont. Mr. Chairman, General Semonite and I are
actively engaged with the Administration on working forward to
do just what you are saying, sir.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Semonite, Mr. Lamont, Mr. Mikkelsen, thanks to all
of you for being here. Good to see both of you again. We have
done a lot of work together. I just want to express my
appreciation to you both.
General Semonite, what is the backlog for construction
projects in the Corps right now? How much is it, $1 billion?
General Semonite. $68 billion.
Senator Hoeven. So we could cut that in half. Would that be
a good thing?
General Semonite. It would be great, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. So the idea behind public-private
partnerships is that for States and other localities that have
the money to cut the Federal share in half that we ought to
give that consideration.
Would you not say that would be a good thing to do, common
sense?
General Semonite. I would strongly agree with you.
Senator Hoeven. So therefore, it would not make much sense
to have a Benefit Cost Ratio at the office of Management and
Budget that gives absolutely no credit whatsoever for somebody
coming in and putting up half the money for a project.
That does not make much sense, does it?
General Semonite. It is my personal opinion, as Todd
Semonite, that it does not necessarily incentivize those able
to put money on the table that could help relieve the stress on
the taxpayer.
Senator Hoeven. And in fact, you are committed to help
changing that Benefit Cost Ratio so that it makes sense.
General Semonite. I am, Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
I would ask Secretary Lamont the same questions on the
Benefit Cost Ratio.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
The Benefit Cost Ratio, as I had indicated earlier, since
1992 at 2.5-to-1 and 7 percent has been a high bar as far as
competition for Federal funds.
I understand your frustration. I understand, as General
Semonite does, where project sponsors bring money to the table,
there needs to possibly be the opportunity to discuss with you
and within the Administration, how we can move forward on this.
Senator Hoeven. Are you committed to helping address giving
proper credit to P3 projects in the Benefit Cost Ratio that the
OMB (Office of Management and Budget) uses?
Mr. Lamont. Again, sir, I think we really need to look hard
at this, and work with you and your staff, and with the
Administration to come to some sort of----
Senator Hoeven. Well, the administration, the Office of
Management and Budget has committed to me that both OMB and the
White House are committed to changing it.
So I just want to make sure you are onboard and can help us
do that as expeditiously as possible, and I am asking for that
on the record.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
You and I have had discussions on Fargo-Moorhead, and I am
very up to speed on exactly what your concerns are, sir.
Senator Hoeven. And the reality is, with a $68 billion
backlog, this is an opportunity to help everybody. It does not
force you to do anything. It just gives you the ability to do
what makes sense, and that is really what we are after.
FARGO-MOORHEAD AREA DIVERSION
My next question is, General Semonite, just any update from
you as to where we are in the process of getting that done?
General Semonite. Sir, as you are aware, the work plan for
2017 does allocate $20 million for Fargo-Moorhead. We have
already worked our way to be able to get ready to award the
contract for the first big phase of Fargo-Moorhead.
There is more capability that could be applied if, in fact,
there were more Federal funds. But right now, that $20 million
will be utilized to start that first control structure.
Senator Hoeven. We need to work with you on the work plan
for 2018 as well.
But the other thing is we need to complete the revisions to
the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) scoring method for the P3
so that in the budgeting process, projects can be included
accordingly.
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Okay.
Again, I want to thank both of you for your help on that as
well as the Chairman of the committee. I think it really is an
opportunity for the country, and so, I appreciate it very much.
SOURIS RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION
I am going to switch to Minot. As you know, flood 2011,
4,000 families evacuated from their homes. A lot more people
than that, obviously, if you figure the average family is three
or four.
We have done a lot of work, again, State and locally to do
that, build flood protection for them on the Souris River in
phases. Your predecessor, General Bostick, was very helpful in
helping us segment that.
What we need from you now is just a commitment, General
Semonite that you will work with the St. Paul Division to make
sure that we get the Corps' piece of that moving as rapidly as
we can.
Again, it is phases and you all are coming in on the fourth
phase.
General Semonite. You have my commitment to continue to
keep pushing that, sir.
LAKE SAKAKAWEA AND LAKE AUDUBON
Senator Hoeven. Then the last is on Lake Sakakawea. Are you
familiar, either of you gentlemen, familiar at all with the
Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon as far as the embankment that
separates the two and the fact that we do need to take a look
at that?
I am just asking that you work with us very closely before
you decide on any course of action because that is a huge water
resource that has many, many important uses.
General Semonite. Senator, I am certainly aware, but I have
never been there, but I have been briefed on it.
We are doing public meetings right now in the next couple
of days. The comment period will be open for 30 days, so we
will continue to wrap those comments up.
If you need to, I will certainly come by and let you know
what we are thinking on that once we get all the public
comments in.
Senator Hoeven. That would be fantastic. Appreciate it very
much.
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Senator Feinstein and I are going to need to go to a
meeting that is related to this subcommittee's work. So I am
going to turn the chairmanship over to Senator Hoeven, before
Senator Murkowski asks questions.
I will submit my remaining questions for the record on the
fish mitigation funding and the cost-benefit ratio in
Chickamauga Lock.
So I thank the witnesses for coming, and I hope you will
excuse us.
Senator Murkowski.
ARCTIC DEEP-DRAFT PORT STUDY
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Chairman, thank you for being here today. Thank you for
your contributions in so many areas.
General, I would like to start with you, if I may, and this
relates to the Arctic. As my colleagues here on the
Appropriations Committee know, I come to many of these
appropriations subcommittee hearings to talk about the Arctic,
and I would like to bring up the issue of Arctic infrastructure
and our deep-draft port in the region.
As you know, with increasing traffic in the Bering and
Chukchi, we recognize the fact that we do not have a deep-draft
port there.
I am concerned about the Corps' decision not to fund
ongoing work in the Corps' fiscal year 2017 work plan to
continue the evaluation of the Arctic deep-draft port there in
Nome.
I do recognize that the study identified Nome as the
preferred location for the near term development of that port.
There was also an external, independent peer review, which
confirmed the validity of the study.
I do recognize that we are dealing with some challenging
budget environments, but I equally appreciate the opportunity
that we have here. We are seeing this unfold in front of us. We
need to get on it sooner than later recognizing the lag time
and how long it takes to build anything in the Arctic.
So I am looking for your commitment, General, that you will
work with me to ensure that the Corps does move forward with
the strategic infrastructure project and hopefully reconsider
the decision on funding work in the fiscal year 2017 to
complete the design for an Arctic deep-draft port.
General Semonite. Senator, let me talk about, first of all,
the requirement and I will let Mr. Lamont jump in if he wants
to talk to funding.
The bottom line is that the NDAA (National Defense
Authorization Act) did direct us to take a strategic look at
this. Clearly, this goes back to the following question: where
is the Department of Defense? Where is the Coast Guard? What
are the opportunities up there? As you know, we started a
feasibility study that was put on pause.
What I think we all need to do is continue to be able to
make sure of the situation. This was Homeland Security and
Department of Defense coming together. We have not had an
answer from that work that is being done as to the utility of
Nome when it comes to DOD (Department of Defense) and the Coast
Guard.
But I think what we need to do is continue to be able to
help champion every one of these requirements, so then Congress
has all the facts they need to be able to figure out what gets
funded or not. We will continue to work this, and I will make
sure my guys are working with you every single day, and do
whatever we can to identify the potential of that particular
port.
And sir, I do not know if you want to jump on the funding
end, but we will certainly help justify the requirement.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and I think along that line, if I
may, General, making sure that it is not just an assessment or
an evaluation as to the economic justification, but the fact
that you have life safety reasons.
You have other socioeconomic benefits that would come, not
only to Nome, but to the region as a whole. Your ability to
decrease the costs of food, for instance, the cost of fuel,
just the general cost of living and hopefully that is included
as part of that assessment.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, Senator. We will look at all of the
aspects as we proceed on any feasibility report. I can assure
you of that. This is within the Principles and Guidelines that
we follow for our planning program no matter what type of
project.
Senator Murkowski. Well, know that this is something,
again, we want to work with you. We have had conversations and
I know the direction here, but I just want to keep a fire under
this.
SMALL, REMOTE, AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS
I want to scale things down. We talk a lot about big
projects around here, particularly when we are talking about
this infrastructure bill. I want to make sure that some of our
smaller infrastructure projects that are so key to a very
small, local economy that they do not get lost in the backwash
of all of this activity.
I raised the issue of Section 107, a small navigation
program. It is a great fit for small communities in my State
that are looking to construct these small harbors or
breakwaters without having to wait years for WRDA (Water
Resources Developmental Act) authorization.
Is there any reason that the Corps never requests funding
for this program in its budget? I mean, I know that we have
projects that are waiting for funding under this authority, but
it just seems it is not moving forward with that initiative.
General Semonite.
General Semonite. Senator, all of the requirements that we
have, billions of dollars we put forward; those requirements
and the capabilities of those requirements continue to be
outlined.
There are two specific programs you are talking about.
There is a component of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that
is for 10 percent for small, emerging harbors.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
General Semonite. We always try to make sure we have fence
funds to be able to compete for exactly what you are talking
about.
The other thing that is specifically in your area, though,
is the remote and subsistence harbors.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
General Semonite. That is the 2006 justification and that
is another one where there is not a set-aside, though. Those do
not come out of that 10 percent of that fenced amount of money.
Those do have to compete.
There are two you have right now, Craig Harbor and Little
Diomede that I think are authorized for the funding. But those,
unfortunately, do not have any additional justification to be
able to bring them up high enough on the funding line.
Now, if you want to jump in, sir. But basically, we put the
requirement forward, but the question is when you rack and
stack, those do not have a special ability to be able to
qualify for a higher level of funding.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and whether it is the Section 107
or whether it is, as you point out, the opportunities for a
small and remote subsistence harbors, we would like the Corps
to be able to exercise this discretion that we were trying to
give you in last year's language. To take into account the
regional benefit that then comes when you are able to put in,
like the dock that we are talking about in Emmonak, very small,
but the economic benefit to that region is really quite
extraordinary.
So, I guess the ask is for you to consider supporting
funding specifically for building these remote or subsistence
harbors to match the general investigation funds.
Is that an approach that we could work through?
Mr. Lamont. Senator, aside from the Benefit Cost Ratio, I
agree with you. We will give equal opportunity to look at the
site-specific problems that these communities are facing.
General Semonite hit the nail on the head. We have two
recent projects that were authorized, Craig Harbor in Alaska
and of course, Little Diomede. Getting over the bar as far as
their ability to compete is on us; our job is to work within
the Administration and to work with Congress. So your point is
well taken.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate a little
extra time.
Sometimes it is, again, these very small projects. We get
carried away with the big things, but you have mentioned a
couple of projects from your State that probably are not making
the front pages of major newspapers. But for the economic
impact to your region, they are quite considerable.
So as we look to how we deal with infrastructure in this
country, I sure hope we do not lose sight of these small,
regional drivers because it does make a difference.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hoeven [presiding]. Senator from Alaska, as usual,
is right on.
Senator Merkley.
DALLES DAM
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Pleasure to have all of you here. There are so many
different things you are involved in that affect my home State
of Oregon.
Mr. Lamont, thank you for working with the Northwest
delegation to right the historical wrong in which the Tribes'
housing was not rebuilt after the dams were constructed on the
Columbia River. Really, so much progress has been made on this
in a short period.
We have $1.56 million that was obligated under the
continuing resolution for the village development plan for one
of those housing communities. It is a $3 million project. My
understanding is you are working to identify the balance of
that $3 million and I just wanted to check in to see how that
is going.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, Senator. Those discussions are underway as
I speak right now.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
I want to certainly lend enthusiasm and encouragement.
These dams were built half a century ago and it is an ancient
failure on our part to fulfill our end of the bargain, and I
just encourage every possible effort for us to keep moving
forward with the effort.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. I appreciate your concern and we will
move forward on that.
CRITICAL DREDGING AT SMALL PORTS
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And as my colleague from Alaska
was talking about the small ports, that is certainly a
significant issue in my State with many coastal ports and the
set aside.
And so, General Semonite, this is a situation where with
our coastal ports, there is commercial activity. There is sport
fishing. There is recreational activity. With the southern
currents along the coast, they fill in pretty quickly and so
regular dredging is key to those coastal economies.
We have done well in terms of the funding for fiscal year
2017, but I am concerned about the budget, which leaves out
seven of the coastal ports in Oregon for fiscal year 2018.
I wanted to check-in to see if we can work together to try
to make sure that any of those ports where there is critical
dredging to occur that we are able to get them accomplished in
fiscal year 2018 as well.
General Semonite. Senator, obviously we will work as much
as we can to continue to get those that are not funded to get
them to be better justified. But I think the good news is, and
I sent this out about three hours ago. See all the green on
this sheet?
Senator Merkley. Yes.
General Semonite. So you have 18 ports that we are
specifically tracking right now, and I will just lump together
the fiscal year 2017 work plan as well as the fiscal year 2018
budget. You basically have 13 of those budgeted either in the
work plan, or the budget, or both. There are five that I am
tracking that, in fact, do not have funds.
And that is where, again, the best we can do is to
continually find ways of better documenting and hopefully being
able to justify these projects for additional funds.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I will look forward to
continuing to work with you all on that and sometimes some of
them are those that are unfunded are more critical than others
and we will try to find a way to accomplish them.
Thank you.
KLAMATH BASIN
And then, Mr. Mikkelsen, I wanted to turn to the Klamath
water situation. We have worked very hard over the years. I say
``we,'' the stakeholders, the Tribes, the ranchers, the
farmers, the fishermen, the community, the delegation to try to
figure out how to resolve a challenge in which water is grossly
over-allocated. And how to, therefore, sustain a healthy lake,
a healthy river, and a healthy economy which there is a limited
supply. And we have had the three worst ever droughts in
Klamath Basin in the last decade and a half.
The stakeholders at this point are far apart. There was a
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that did not make it
through Congress and the facts on the ground keep changing,
which means that we have to reassemble.
But I understand you are scheduled to visit the Basin in a
few weeks and I would love to have a chance for the folks on my
team, who have been immersed in this, to sit down and
brainstorm before your trip as we work to reassemble pieces of
this puzzle.
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Senator.
I want to actually express my appreciation right now to
your staff because they took the time to meet with me for about
an hour about two and a half or three weeks ago, and then meet
with my special assistant or senior advisor also for another
hour on top of that and I will be going out.
I will be continuing my trip from Santa Fe on the 15th,
flying into Eureka, California and starting at the Yurok end of
the Klamath on Sunday. And I will be in Klamath Falls by
Monday, I think, the 17th. I plan on spending 3 days there
right now.
I reviewed the draft itinerary yesterday and noted that on
one of those days, I had an airboat ride on a refuge. As much
as I would like an airboat ride on a refuge, I think that my
time would be better spent meeting with some of the upper basin
folks that we do not have on the itinerary at this time. So I
have asked my people to go back and try to make the trip a
little bit more inclusive.
And we are going to try to meet with as many stakeholders
at that time as we can to just make sure everybody has a desire
to try to move this process forward. We are interested in
solutions.
Senator Merkley. It is a very complicated set of issues
including the removal of dams on the river that do not produce
much power. They are not used for irrigation themselves. Fish
passage.
And also the Tribes' forest was taken away from them and
turned into a national forest. It is the only case like this in
the country and when the Tribe was restored, it was not re-
provided with the land that the Federal Government took from
them to turn into a forest. And those are some of the issues.
But the health of the water and the stream, and figuring
out how exactly we can conserve water, use water more
efficiently both in the upper basin and on the refuge in order
to have a prosperous farming-ranching community in both
locations, but still get enough water in the rivers.
There are a lot of pieces to assemble and the fact that you
are taking 3 days to be there is really greatly appreciated.
Because hopefully, and I hope in my time in office, we will
finally reach a settlement and be able to get a congressional
stamp of endorsement on it.
Mr. Mikkelsen. Senator, I actually enjoy challenges like
this, believe it or not. I've got about 30 or 35 years of
experience in dealing with these sorts of situations and am
looking forward to engaging at Klamath.
Senator Merkley. Well, in that case, you are the right man
for this job and you are going to have a lot of fun. It is a
significant challenge.
NEW STUDY STARTS
I wanted to turn back to Mr. Lamont and just note that the
fiscal year 2017 Omnibus budget had slots for about six new
start studies related to levees. And Oregon, and specifically
in the Portland metro area, has been working to address the
role of its levees and the actions that needed to be taken.
There is a lot of concern that, I think, that only one of
these six new start slots was filled and Portland would like to
get on the list, and figure out how to get Portland into one of
these remaining five slots. I just thought I would toss that to
you.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, Senator. As I had indicated earlier in my
testimony in some of the questions from the panel members, the
demands on the system are incredible as far as water resource
development across the Nation.
This Administration put a high premium on, within the
constraint of $5.002 billion, where to put those funds. $3.1
billion is in operations and maintenance; that is about 62
percent of the program. About $1 billion, $1.002 billion, is in
construction. So we look very, very hard at that.
I know there is a lot of disappointment across the
membership here, but the emphasis from the Administration was
on our existing projects, to ensure we are doing our best,
where the risk is high, to fund those projects within our
Operations and Maintenance account and to continue construction
of projects that are underway. And then to allow some new
starts for construction and only one new study start.
That new study start, again, as General Semonite had
indicated, is an opportunity with a project sponsor that may be
bringing some more into the game. That really received a high
level review by the Administration.
So if there is any additional information that you need, I
would be happy to work with your staff or yourself, sir.
Senator Merkley. Well, I take your point. The resources are
constrained and you have to make choices. I respect that, but I
just want to make sure you are aware of how important this is
to the future of the Portland metropolitan area.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. Very aware. I grew up and worked in
the planning program of the Corps, and that is the beginning of
the pipeline for our new infrastructure projects.
And despite the backlog that General Semonite indicated, we
have new demands on the system that deserve our attention. I
will work with you and the committee staff on anything in the
future on that.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lamont. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Nearly adjourned.
Senator and Governor Shaheen is here. Having worked with
her both as Governors and now as Senators, and formerly
chairing and serving as ranking member of Homeland Security, I
am not only pleased to see her, but certainly want to make sure
she has an opportunity to ask, what I know, will be extremely
insightful questions of each of you.
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER NAVIGATION
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
both for that great introduction and for keeping the hearing
open.
And thank you all for being here today.
I apologize. I was here earlier and I had to go to another
meeting. So I am glad I could get back because I wanted to ask
General Semonite about two projects that are pending in New
Hampshire that have to do with both economic impact and safety
impact. I know that you are aware.
The first of those is the Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua
River Navigation Improvement Project. As I know you know,
General Semonite, the Piscataqua River is one of the fastest
currents in the United States. It makes for a very challenging
travel into the river and getting into port in Portsmouth.
The turning basin is always an issue. What we are hoping is
that this project that will widen the turning basin is
something that will move forward. I know that the Army Corps
has submitted a favorable study for the project.
I wonder if you could just update me on what you think the
current status of this is, and what we could do to support the
effort to keep it moving forward?
General Semonite. Senator, let me talk about where we are
at on it.
Senator Shaheen. That would be great.
General Semonite. And then if Mr. Lamont wants to step in
on the funding end. As much as I love North Dakota, I am
actually from Vermont. So many, many times I have driven across
the Portsmouth Bridge up into Portland, Maine. I know that area
very, very well.
So Preconstruction Engineering and Design effort was begun
a couple of years ago. The non-Federal sponsor funds have been
received. Design phase is underway. The project was authorized.
The construction phase has not been funded.
Now, as Mr. Lamont has said earlier, this is one of those
projects that has to compete.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
General Semonite. It does not get special consideration
under a remote harbor or an emerging harbor. It is one of those
that has to be able to compete on Benefit Cost Ratio.
Unfortunately, the BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) for this is at
1.9 so this is where, again, the best thing that we in the
Corps can do, is to continue to champion it and to be able to
help justify it, including going back and making sure the
numbers are right, so when it is submitted up the chain, it is
able to compete as best possible.
And sir, if you want to jump in on that.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, Senator.
In my former life as one of the Deputy Assistant
Secretaries, I worked with the planning program at the Corps of
Engineers. I personally worked on the Chief's report and tried
to get it through the Administration, and we did. We were
successful on that. It is now authorized and I am thankful to
the Congress for that.
General Semonite, again, hit the nail on the head as far as
the Benefit Cost Ratio. I do not know if you heard my prior
response to many, many questions about how things compete. That
is what it is coming down to.
The BCR at 7 percent is 1.9. The threshold for budget
ability is 2.5-to-1 at a 7 percent discount rate. Senator
Alexander, Chairman Alexander had many questions on that
earlier.
The problem is we have so many needs across the Nation. The
Administration puts a high priority, and they have since 1992,
on that Benefit Cost Ratio as being the major criterion to deal
with. Of course, there are other aspects too, which could be
life safety considerations, for example.
Now, in the fiscal year 2017 work plan, we considered all
authorized projects that might be able to compete and go
forward as new starts. Unfortunately, this one did not. I am
willing to work with you in the future as far as the budget
ability of this project for further consideration in fiscal
year 2018.
Senator Shaheen. I only heard part of Senator Alexander's
questions to you about this issue, but how much are we
challenged in being a small State with an infrastructure
project like this one that does not have the same capacity as a
New York or a New Orleans? How much does that cut against us?
Does that not speak to the need to make sure that as we are
looking at whatever formulas we have that we are able to
accommodate small States like North Dakota, and New Hampshire,
and the projects that we have?
Mr. Lamont. I think, Senator, the issue here is we have
basically two criterion relative to the Benefit Cost Ratio.
For the planning process, under the Principles and
Guidelines that we follow, we have to have a Benefit Cost Ratio
of 1.0-to-1 at the Authorized Discount Rate. The Authorized
Discount Rate is 2.875 percent, which means that it could go
forward for authorization.
Now as far as budget ability, we are back on that BCR of
2.5-to-1 or greater at a 7 percent discount rate.
Senator Shaheen. Okay. So explain that, not in those
numbers, but in what that means for projects like this that are
competing against projects in big States with big populations.
Mr. Lamont. It really comes down, on flood damage reduction
projects, for example, where real estate values may vary
considerably. In urbanized areas, there are going to be high
property values. In rural areas, those property values may be
considerably lower.
We saw a good example of this in Iowa when Senator Grassley
and Senator Ernst were concerned about an authorized project in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and the ability of that project to go
forward into construction. Again, it was constrained by that
Benefit Cost Ratio and ability for it to compete with very,
very limited Federal resources. That is the crux of the
problem.
We must find a way to work with you all in the Congress. As
I have indicated before, this President's infrastructure
initiative may be the key as far as bringing all parties
together at a crossroads that this country is now at relative
to aging infrastructure and our ability to push forward as a
Nation.
General Semonite. Senator, let me try to target your answer
a little bit better as well.
Very, very large harbors that have a lot of throughput, a
lot of containers and a lot of tonnage do compete very, very
well.
Very, very small harbors have a special set-aside that the
committee has designated, which we think is a great idea. They
compete within a bin of only about 10 percent of that set-
aside, but they do compete.
If you are somewhere in the middle, then it is a challenge
and that is something that we can continue to try to give
recommendations back to the committee and the Administration on
how to address the issue.
Unfortunately, it is not based on recreation. It is based
on industry and throughput and that is a little bit more of a
stretch on those types of a harbor.
HAMPTON SEABROOK HARBOR
Senator Shaheen. Well, and again, that is the other project
that we have in New Hampshire that is pending as well, which is
the Hampton Seabrook Harbor which is really in desperate need
of dredging. It is critical to our tourism industry and to the
whole economy of the seacoast.
Like Portsmouth, these are both essential economic engines
for the State of New Hampshire, but it is going to be the same
problem, I am sure, as this project moves through the process.
General Semonite. But Senator, this committee over time has
done a great job of understanding where some of those projects
that do not compete well, how do we change the rules to be able
to find ways and innovative strategies to be able to address
those.
So this is where we want to continue to work with anybody
on the committee to say, ``Here are some other tools that are
out there.'' Clearly, it is up to you to decide whether you
want to accept those tools.
But maybe there are some more things we can do to turn the
knobs a little bit better to be able to figure out: how do you
approximate that share? Especially when it comes to some of the
economic value, how do you make sure that we are represented?
We are more than willing to work with anything we can, to
be able to help give the committee better options.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I think that would be
very helpful and I look forward to working with you to do that.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator.
Again, I want to thank all of you for coming and for the
very important work that you have done in regard to our part of
the country, both Secretary Lamont and General Semonite. Again,
my sincere appreciation.
Also, Acting Commissioner Mikkelsen, thank you as well for
some of the work you have done in regard to Lake Tschida and
work we are trying to do now on Lake Patterson. Again, I
appreciate the problem solving approach.
So again, to all of you, thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Senators
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time if they would like. The subcommittee requests
all responses to questions for the record be provided within 30
days of receipt.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. I'm pleased that the Corps' budget request included
funding for small ports and harbors in Maine: $4.2 million for the Saco
River, $2.5 million for York Harbor, and $400 thousand for Wells
Harbor. This maintenance dredging is extremely important to the
commercial lobster and fishing industry in Maine, and these Federal
navigation projects have an outsized economic impact. General Semonite,
your written statement notes that the budget funds several small port
projects. How can the Army Corps continue to make sure small ports and
harbors can properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds?
Answer. The Corps focuses funding for maintenance dredging on those
projects that provide the greatest economic, environmental, and public
safety returns to the Nation, but also considers many other factors.
For small harbors and channels the Corps considers channel conditions
as well as other factors such as use of a harbor as a critical harbor
of refuge or a subsistence harbor; support for public transportation;
U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue or other Federal agency use; the
reliance on marine transportation for energy generation or home heating
oil deliveries; and the level of commercial use. The fiscal year 2018
Budget provided nearly 10 percent ($93.2 million) to emerging harbors
of the amounts derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Question. I was grateful that in April the Army Corps and the Navy
were able to work together and conduct an emergency dredge of the
Kennebec River to allow the USS Peralta, built by Bath Iron Works, to
safely traverse the river to the open ocean. Bath Iron Works is one of
only two shipyards that builds DDG-51 guided missile destroyers for the
Navy, and it's absolutely essential that these destroyers are able to
conduct sea trials and ultimately be delivered to the fleet for
operations across the globe. Twice since 2011, shoaling of the Kennebec
has required emergency dredging to ensure Navy ships built at Bath can
reach the open seas. Of course, waiting until a situation becomes an
emergency is never a sustainable way to deal with any issue. Will you
work with Congress and the Navy to come up with a permanent solution to
this reoccurring problem?
Answer. The Acting Secretary of the Army has engaged Navy
leadership regarding future Navy ship building operations that may
require dredging the lower Kennebec River.
Should future Navy ship building operations require dredging the
lower reach of the Kennebec River, the Navy will need to be prepared to
use its appropriations to execute the work, or have other stakeholders
fund the work using existing Civil Works authorities providing for the
use of contributed funds. The office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works will continue to work closely with Navy to address
future funding, timing and dredging on the Kennebec River to support
the Navy's ship building operations.
Question. One long-term problem Maine and the city of Saco has
encountered deals with ongoing erosion of Camp Ellis Beach. To date, 37
homes have been lost due to erosion, so this truly is a pressing
problem. The Corps' has been studying shore damage mitigation options
under Section 111 of the 1968 Rivers and Harbors Act. My understanding
is that currently, the New England District believes the total
feasibility, design, and initial construction costs for the project may
be greater than the current authorized statutory cap, which obviously
is problematic. The District is in the process of preparing the full
report and decision document for this project, which will be submitted
for review and approval at Corps headquarters this summer. Will you
please ensure this report is acted upon quickly so both the Army Corps
and Congress can take any needed actions on the project?
Answer. Corps Headquarters, the New England District, and the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works are
working to identify a path forward on this report.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Recently a silver carp, one of several species of
invasive Asian carp, was pulled out of the water in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, a mere nine miles from Lake Michigan. The
carp, caught by a commercial fisherman below the T.J. O'Brien Lock and
Dam was not a small fish, at a length of 28 inches and weighing 8
pounds. It is concerning that a fish this size made it past the
electric barriers. This is the not the first time an Asian carp has
been found past the electric barriers, the first was in 2010, when a
bighead carp was found in Lake Calumet. Since the 2010 incident, a
multi-pronged approach, which included maintaining the barriers and
fishing to thin the population of carp within the Illinois River, has
been funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a program that
the Trump Administration proposed to eliminate in the fiscal year 2018
budget. We all know the importance of keeping the invasive Asian carp
out of the Great Lakes. In the Mississippi River, the carp have already
shifted the ecological balance of the river significantly. We cannot
ignore the Asian carp threat, which puts the ecological stability and
$7 billion annual fishing industry of the Great Lakes' at risk. In
response to the silver carp caught last week, what steps is the Corps
taking to ensure the safety of our Great Lakes?
Answer. It is true that one fish was found approximately nine miles
from Lake Michigan. While the forensic analysis of this silver carp,
which was captured on June 22, has not yet been completed, it is not
possible to distinguish a fish that passed through the barrier on its
own from a fish that was illegally transported around the barrier.
Also, the closest known adult Asian carp populations in the Illinois
River are about 47 miles from Lake Michigan and no small Asian carp
have been observed closer than 88 miles from Lake Michigan.
In response to the capture, the Corps participated in a two-week
intense sampling operation in the area, as outlined in the Asian Carp
Regional Coordinating Committee's (ACRCC's) Contingency Response Plan,
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources. The sampling effort, which exceeded 1,950 person-
hours, consisted of setting more than 43 miles of gill net and
conducting 365 electro-fishing runs in a 13-mile area from below the
T.J. O'Brien Lock and Dam to Calumet Harbor. No additional bighead or
silver carp were captured during this exercise.
Question. The Corps study at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam is a
critical step in preventing the spread of Asian Carp and understanding
what methods would best prevent their movement towards the Great Lakes.
The Corps Tentatively Selective Plan or ``draft study'' for Brandon
Road was scheduled to be released on February 28 but that release has
been delayed by the current Administration. It is my understanding that
the Brandon Road Study that was set to be released in February is
complete. Can you confirm what is causing the delay in the Corps
releasing the report?
Answer. The Brandon Road draft study report addresses a range of
possible alternatives and outcomes that may impact diverse ecosystems
and national economies. As such, elements of this report require
extensive coordination with governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders.
Question. Shortly before the expected release of the Brandon Road
Study, several Members of Congress wrote to President Trump asking him
to delay the study, arguing that the ``non- structural actions taken
thus far have successfully mitigated the risks associated with Asian
Carp.'' Given the discovery of the Asian carp last week nine miles from
Lake Michigan, is that still an accurate reason to justify the
continued delay of the release of the Brandon Road Study?
Answer. The Brandon Road study will be released upon completion of
the ongoing review.
Question. I was deeply disappointed to find that for the second
year in a row there was no funding for the continuation of construction
of the McCook Reservoir in the Administration's budget request. When
completed, the reservoir will prevent over $114 million in annual flood
damages to the Chicagoland area, protect over 5 million people, and
enjoy a 3 to 1 benefit cost ratio. At 91 percent complete, it is simply
unacceptable for the Corps to refuse to finish the job. Since its
authorization back in 1988, Congress has been clear that both stages of
the project were authorized for storm water protection. Congress once
again confirmed its intent on McCook in both last year's WRDA
authorization bill and last year's Energy & Water appropriations bill
that McCook is a storm water project and that the Corps should expedite
its completion with appropriate funding. Can you help me understand why
the Corps continues to ignore the clear direction from Congress on
McCook?
Answer. The Budget provided funding in fiscal year 2016 to complete
Stage I of the McCook project and thereby enable the non-Federal
sponsor to meet the requirements of its consent decree with the
Environmental Protection Agency. When it became apparent that the Corps
would need more funding to meet this objective, we provided such
funding in the fiscal year 2017 work plan.
Question. I appreciate that some funding for McCook was included in
the Corps' fiscal year 2017 work plan, but that funding was not even
enough to complete Stage 1 of McCook, which is required by consent
decree to be operational by the end of this year. Can you commit that
the Corps will work to secure immediate and near-term funding to make
up the approximately $11.6 million shortfall in fiscal year 2017
Federal funds for the McCook Reservoir?
Answer. We will consider whether to propose additional funding in
fiscal year 2017 and, if so, would identify a source for any potential
increase.
Question. Can you guarantee that funding for the McCook Reservoir
will be included in the Corps' fiscal year 2018 work plan?
Answer. This project will be considered for future funding, along
with other programs, projects, and activities across the Nation in
competition for available Federal resources.
Question. The Metro East Levee System, which spans 75.8 miles, is
made up of five levee systems: Wood River Levee, Chain of Rocks Levee,
Metro East Sanitary District, Prairie du Pont, and Fish Lake Levees.
This system protects 111,700 acres, 288,000 residents and employees,
and $4.6 billion in property and critical infrastructure. Due to under
seepage within the system, which increases the risk of failure, the
Corps in partnership with the local levee district began rehabilitating
the levee system in 2007 in order to get the levees back into
compliance with FEMA's 100-year flood protection requirements. Without
100-year accreditation, approximately 150,000 people and 7,000
businesses would need to purchase additional flood insurance in an area
where few can afford it. The Corps and local levee districts have made
significant investments in the system over the last 7 years, but the
Metro East Levee system was not included in the proposed fiscal year
2018 budget. Why wasn't the Metro East Levee System included in the
President fiscal year 2018 budget despite previous Federal investment
in the project?
Answer. The Chain of Rocks Canal deficiency correction project was
funded to completion in fiscal year 2014. The Wood River Levee
deficiency correction project was funded to completion in the fiscal
year 2017 Work Plan. Investigations funds were moved to the Prairie du
Pont and Fish Lake project in fiscal year 2017 to conduct an economic
update. The East St. Louis deficiency correction project will be
considered for future funding following review of the supporting
decision document.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Kennedy
Question. I was glad to see the Comite River project receive $6.7
million in the fiscal year 2017 Work Plan. It has taken a long time to
get here. Unfortunately, it took a major flood in Louisiana for this
project to even get highlighted again. Knowing time is of the essence,
what is the actual timeline for when this money can be used for actual
work on the project?
Answer. The fiscal year 2017 Work Plan funds allocated for Comite
are planned for execution by the end of calendar year 2017.
Question. We have a major problem maintaining our existing
infrastructure, especially in Louisiana. Due to the under-funding for
dredging small-to-medium-sized ports along the coast, such as the Port
of Iberia, Port of Terrebonne, Port of Morgan City, the neglect is
causing many of these ports to go into a death spiral. When these ports
and waterways are not maintained, vessels are diverted to larger ports
along the Gulf Coast. In a sense, the Corps has created an economic
disadvantage to do business in the heartland of Louisiana's coast.
Businesses are being forced to close or move elsewhere. What does this
budget do to address this need? While there are some ports in Louisiana
that have some revenue to spend to pay for some of the dredging
themselves, most of them do not since their budgets are stretched thin.
How are you going to address this need?
Answer. The Corps focuses funding for maintenance dredging on those
projects that provide the greatest economic, environmental, and public
safety returns to the Nation, but also considers many other factors.
The Budget also provides significant funding for small-to-medium sized
ports across the Nation.
Question. Can you provide me an update on how close we are to
reaching post-Panamax depth (-50 feet) on the Mississippi River? It is
my understanding that it is still being studied. Can you give me a
reasonable timeline of when the study be finished and how long it will
take to start dredging to -50 feet?
Answer. The Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge,
Louisiana General Reevaluation Report was funded to completion in
fiscal year 2017 and is currently scheduled to complete in fiscal year
2018. Any future design or construction timeline is dependent on the
results of the completed study.
Question. I know the President has stated that infrastructure
investment is a major priority for his administration. Is the Corps
actively involved in the President's infrastructure plan in regards to
updating and improving our waterways? Have you been consulted as
decisions are made on the overall plan?
Answer. We are working with the Administration and providing
technical information, as requested.
Question. One of the biggest issues I hear from my community
leaders back home is the lengthy and onerous process to receiving a
permit from the Corps. Does this budget include relief to help get
permits out the door faster for local projects?
Answer. The Corps strives to improve customer service in all its
programs, including the Regulatory program. However, performance
targets for issuing general permits as well as the more complex
individual permits have consistently been exceeded. If there are
specific issues that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to sit
down with you to discuss those issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Cornyn
Question. In the absence of fiscal year 2017 funds or inclusion in
the fiscal year 2018 President's Budget, it's imperative that a Project
Partnership Agreement (PPA) be executed in an expeditious manner to
begin construction on the Corpus Christi Ship Channel--Channel
Improvement Project (CCSC-CIP) project this year using locally
contributed funds. It is my understanding that a draft PPA has been all
but finalized since March 2017; however, transmittal of that PPA to the
Corps Galveston District has not occurred, thus further delaying
construction of the project.
Please explain the cause of the delay in the finalization and
transmittal of the PPA to the Galveston District?
Answer. A project-specific PPA was developed for the CCSC-CIP that
reflects the project's authorizations. Additional coordination
regarding pipeline relocations and removals was needed before the draft
PPA could be transmitted to the Galveston District.
Question. What are the outstanding issues and when do you expect
them to be resolved?
Answer. There are no other outstanding issues.
Question. Within a week of receipt of these questions please
provide my office with a specific timeline on when the Galveston
District will receive the PPA?
Answer. The Corps will follow up with your office with the current
status.
______
Questions Submitted to Mr. Douglas Lamont
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Both the Water Resources and Development Acts (WRDA) of
2014 and 2016 included spending targets related to the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to ensure that our Nation's seaports dredging
and maintenance needs are met. However, in recent years, the
Administration's budget requests have continuously requested funding
levels well below the targeted levels. Meeting these target levels is
incredibly important, and Congress has met these targets now 3 years in
a row. Unfortunately, the Administration's budget proposals, including
this year, have not.
Acting Assistant Secretary Lamont, is there a reason why the Corps'
annual budget request has not met the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
targets?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 Budget includes $965
million in HMTF spending, which is the highest amount ever budgeted
(the fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 Budgets included $915
million and the fiscal year 2017 Budget included $951 million). While
additional funds could be expended for dredging and maintenance of our
coastal harbors and channels and inland harbors, the fiscal year 2018
Budget request is an appropriate amount developed through the Budget
process, which considers other potential uses of the available funds
both within the Corps Civil Works program and across the Federal
Government, including the need to reduce the Federal deficit.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. I was grateful that in April the Army Corps and the Navy
were able to work together and conduct an emergency dredge of the
Kennebec River to allow the USS Peralta, built by Bath Iron Works, to
safely traverse the river to the open ocean. Bath Iron Works is one of
only two shipyards that builds DDG-51 guided missile destroyers for the
Navy, and it's absolutely essential that these destroyers are able to
conduct sea trials and ultimately be delivered to the fleet for
operations across the globe. Twice since 2011, shoaling of the Kennebec
has required emergency dredging to ensure Navy ships built at Bath can
reach the open seas. Of course, waiting until a situation becomes an
emergency is never a sustainable way to deal with any issue. Will you
work with Congress and the Navy to come up with a permanent solution to
this reoccurring problem?
Answer. In my capacity as the Senior Official Performing the Duties
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, I engaged Navy leadership
regarding future Navy ship building operations that may require
dredging the lower Kennebec River.
Should future Navy ship building operations require dredging the
lower reach of the Kennebec River, the Navy will need to be prepared to
use its appropriations to execute the work, or have other stakeholders
fund the work using existing Civil Works authorities providing for the
use of contributed funds. My office will continue to work closely with
Navy to address future funding, timing and dredging on the Kennebec
River to support the Navy's ship building operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
fiscal year 2017 work plan--new study starts
Question. Mr. Lamont, I am concerned that the Army Corps' fiscal
year 2017 Work Plan did not align with the Congressional direction
included in the Omnibus.
The Work Plan included one new study start, despite the fact that
Congress provided the Corps up to six new study starts, and
specifically allocated among navigation, flood reduction, and
environmental restoration. This Subcommittee would not have
specifically allocated each of the six new study starts if we did not
intend for each of them to be utilized.
I understand that the Army Corps has prioritized studies and
projects that are already underway. However, many of our communities
face critical infrastructure and public safety risks that cannot be
ignored simply because the Army Corps has a backlog of current
projects.
How has the Corps decided to balance the need to complete ongoing
projects vs. newly identified risks that require new studies?
Answer. The Army carefully considered all potential new start
studies. However, there are currently over 300 specifically authorized
investigations activities underway, and over 350 individually
authorized construction projects at various stages of construction in
the Army Civil Works portfolio. In the past 5 years, under our SMART
planning process, the Corps has completed its studies more quickly.
Over the same period, however, it has completed and fiscally closed out
comparatively few construction projects.
Question. Why did the Corps initiate only one new study start in
the fiscal year 2017 Work Plan despite the Omnibus' clear
classification of all six new study starts?
Answer. While we considered funding additional studies, and
evaluated each potential new study for funding, we decided to focus on
ongoing studies and pre-construction engineering design work as our
priority in allocating the Investigations funds added in fiscal year
2017.
One impact of the Corps' refusal to utilize all of the new study
starts authorized by this Subcommittee in the Omnibus hits close to
home for me.
In San Francisco, the Embarcadero Seawall provides flood protection
for my home city's financial district and tens of thousands of people
every day. However, it is crumbling and in urgent need of repair.
However, due to the Corps' own bureaucratic hurdles, the Corps
cannot even begin studying how to repair the wall until it designates
this study as a new start.
Question. Given the public safety risks and the potentially
astronomical recovery costs if the seawall fails, why did the Corps
choose not to designate the Embarcadero Seawall as a new start, despite
having six new study starts available?
Answer. While we considered funding additional studies, and
evaluated each potential new study for funding, we decided to focus on
ongoing studies and pre-construction engineering design work as our
priority in allocating the Investigations funds added in fiscal year
2017.
Question. How does the Corps justify refusing to use all 6 new
study starts available when there are clear public safety risks
associated with inaction?
Answer. The Army carefully considered all potential new start
studies. However, there are currently over 300 specifically authorized
investigations activities underway, and over 350 individually
authorized construction projects at various stages of construction in
the Army Civil Works portfolio. In the past 5 years, under our SMART
planning process, the Corps has completed its studies more quickly.
Over the same period, however, it has completed and fiscally closed out
comparatively few construction projects.
Question. How does not utilizing 5 of the 6 new study starts
actually help reduce the Corps' backlog or accelerate progress on
ongoing projects?
Answer. The work plan achieves this objective by focusing on
completing ongoing work.
Question. If the Corps continues to emphasize ongoing work, how
will new infrastructure projects compete for funding if the Corps does
not usher new studies through the project pipeline?
Answer. We will consider funding new study efforts in the future.
balancing corps missions: flood risk management and navigation
Question. Mr. Lamont, I was disappointed to see that the fiscal
year 2017 Work Plan's use of new construction starts favored navigation
projects at the expense of flood protection projects.
Given the significant public safety risks associated with flood
protection projects, what was the process by which the Corps chose to
concentrate 4 of their 6 new construction starts on navigation
projects?
Answer. We consider funding for each potential new project on its
own merits.
Question. I noticed that the fiscal year 2017 Work Plan includes
new construction starts in Boston, Tampa, Jacksonville, Charleston,
Kentucky, and Washington. Why were half of new construction starts
concentrated in the South Eastern United States this year?
Answer. The Boston Harbor, Massachusetts project is a navigation
project with a competitive benefit-to-cost ratio. It was selected on
the basis of its economic justification. The Ohio River Shoreline,
Paducah, Kentucky project would reduce the risk of flood damage. It was
selected due to its economic return, which is high relative to many
other projects, and because the Corps could complete the project with
the funding provided in fiscal year 2017.
With regard to the Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, Tampa Harbor,
Big Bend, Florida and Jacksonville Harbor, Florida projects, the non-
Federal sponsors at each of those ports has voluntarily demonstrated a
substantial commitment to non-Federal investment via pending or in
place advanced funds agreements. The non-Federal sponsor of the Tampa
Harbor, Big Bend project has said that it will cover any remaining
costs beyond those funded in the fiscal year 2017 work plan.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
Question. Mr. Lamont, I have been particularly interested in the
ability of the Corps to use taxpayer dollars efficiently and to pursue
projects that have multiple benefits.
For example, I am interested in the Corps' efforts to reuse dredge
material from a harbor project as fill material for a wetland
restoration project. I know this is also an issue of great interest in
California, particularly in the San Francisco Bay area where there are
multiple ports with dredging needs and multiple wetland restoration
projects that could use that same dredge material.
Mr. Lamont, how are you ensuring that such multiple benefit
projects are being prioritized within the Corps?
Answer. The Corps strives to use dredged material from its
navigation projects beneficially and focuses on regional sediment
management, which looks for sustainable solutions that reduce lifecycle
costs and increase benefits through more efficient and effective use of
sediments across Corps civil works projects. In deciding where to place
dredged material, the Corps will first identify the least cost,
technically feasible, environmentally acceptable manner, which is
called the Federal Standard. Beneficial use of dredged material options
are assessed on a project by project basis. When a beneficial use
option can be implemented for the same cost or less than the Federal
Standard, it can be implemented as part of the Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) dredging project. When a beneficial use option is
more expensive than the Federal Standard, the additional cost must be
either cost-shared under one of the Corps authorities or funded by a
non- Federal sponsor. An example of where a non-Federal sponsor pursued
a beneficial use project with the Corps under a separate authorization
was the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration Project. In that case, the Corps
partnered with the California Coastal Conservancy and received
authorization for an ecosystem restoration project that resulted in a
prepared site with the infrastructure necessary to create a least cost
opportunity for beneficial use of dredged material from O&M navigation
projects in San Francisco Bay.
Question. Please provide an update on the Corps' implementation of
the beneficial use of dredged material provision that was included in
last year's WIIN Act.
Answer. The implementation guidance for Section 1122 of WRDA16 is
under development and our current goal is to finalize that guidance
this fall.
Mr. Lamont, I understand that the Corps' own standards can serve as
an impediment to projects seeking to reuse dredged material for wetland
restoration.
Question. How is the Corps working with local project sponsors to
leverage local funds to jumpstart beneficial reuse projects?
Answer. A local sponsor can provide funds to pay the additional
cost above the cost of placement of dredged material per the Federal
Standard where the cost exceeds the least cost dredged material
placement alternative. The Corps has worked with local sponsors in the
past to maximize opportunities for beneficial use.
Question. How is the Corps implementing a regional approach to
maintenance needs to best utilize limited resources rather than looking
at each project individually.
Answer. The Corps National Regional Sediment Management (RSM)
Program and the South Atlantic Division RSM Regional Center of
Expertise work with Corps Districts and their stakeholders to use a
systems approach to work across multiple projects to manage sediments
in a manner that maximizes natural and economic efficiencies. From
2000-2017, 20 coastal districts and 8 inland districts participated in
the RSM Program and have successfully integrated regional approaches
that include both new and existing projects. Many tools and
technologies are available to assist in developing sediment management
strategies including dredging optimization, regional sediment budgets,
and many others to aid Districts and stakeholders in establishing and
operating regional solutions.
Question. With all of the harbor dredging projects identified in
the fiscal year 2017 Work Plan, will you be making an effort to reuse
the dredged material for other projects?
Answer. The Corps strives to use dredged material from its
navigation projects beneficially and focuses on regional sediment
management, which looks for sustainable solutions that are more
efficient both from a natural and from an economic perspective. The
Corps is continuously seeking new partnerships where there are such
opportunities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. On February 11, 2016, I sent a letter signed by 13 of my
colleagues asking the Army Corps to finalize and publish implementation
guidance for Section 2106 of the Water Resources and Development Act
(WRRDA). This Subcommittee secured $25 million in funding for Section
2106 in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill and $28
million in funding for Section 2106 in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. I appreciate the Army Corps' work to allocate this
funding through the annual Work Plan process, and understand there has
been positive progress with ports who elect to use this funding to
maintain infrastructure through expanded uses.
However, I am frustrated that the Army Corps has still not fully
implemented the program for ports who elect to use this funding to
provide rebates to importers transporting cargo through their port.
Especially after working to make changes to the program in the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act to make it more
workable.
Mr. Lamont, what is the current status of Section 2106 and
implementation of the rebate portion of the program? Since passage of
the WIIN Act, have you reengaged with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to move forward with full implementation of Section 2106? I
strongly urge you to complete this work as soon as possible so that
eligible ports have access to the appropriated funding and can maximize
the effectiveness of Section 2106.
Answer. In July 2016, the Corps finalized Implementation Guidance
for Section 2106 of WRRDA 2014, setting forth how funds were to be
distributed among the donor ports and energy transfer ports. However,
the ports could not come to agreement with the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection as to how rebates would be distributed among the shippers
and importers. The Corps is still working on completing implementation
guidance for Section 1110 in the WIIN Act, which amended Section 2106
of WRRDA 2014.
Question. Similarly, I am concerned that the Army Corps has not
fully implemented Section 2102 of WRRDA. Section 2102 authorizes ports
which generate more Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) revenue than the Army
Corps spends at their ports to direct HMT funds toward two new expanded
uses--berth dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments.
Recognizing that the Army Corps had not implemented Section 2102,
Congress included a provision in the WIIN Act directing the Army Corps
to publish implementation guidance for Section 2102 within 90 days.
This 90 day window has now come and gone.
Mr. Lamont, what is the current status of Section 2102
implementation guidance? When does the Army Corps expect to complete
this work? If berth dredging is unfamiliar territory for the Army
Corps, could you explore issuing a call for projects from eligible
Section 2102 ports and allow the ports to propose projects for the Army
Corps' consideration?
Answer. Implementation Guidance for Section 2102 of WRRDA14 is
under development and is expected to be completed this fall. Dredging
of berths is not unfamiliar territory for the Corps and berth dredging
and expanded uses was addressed in the July 2016 implementation
guidance for Section 2106 of WRRDA 2014.
Question. Nearly 3 years after the Northwest reached a regional
consensus to modernize the Columbia River Treaty, the U.S. notified
Canada of our intent to begin formal negotiations on the Treaty. Since
October 2016, we have been waiting for Canada to come to the table.
Mr. Lamont, I urge you to proactively raise the Columbia River
Treaty at every opportunity with your Canadian counterparts. Do I have
your commitment to do that?
Answer. Yes, we have excellent working relationships with our
Canadian counterparts and the Columbia River Treaty will continue to be
discussed at every opportunity. The Corps supports the Department of
State, which has the actual negotiation authority for the Treaty; and
has supported Department of State through participation in a
Collaborative Modeling Workgroup comprised of modeling and policy
experts from both nations. A broad range of interests are represented
in this workgroup, including ecosystem function, flood risk management,
and hydropower. The group is focusing on modeling objectives and
defining model scenarios.
Specifically, the Corps has led discussions and shared its
expertise in the way that hydro regulation computer models are used to
explore scenarios, then feeding into secondary models that explore
impacts. The most recent face-to-face meeting of the Collaborative
Modeling Workgroup was on June 16, 2017, and was hosted by Canada in
Vancouver, B.C. On October 3, 2017, a longer meeting will be held in
Portland, Oregon. The Corps is also actively engaged in a smaller,
Collaborative Modeling Technical Team that meets more frequently; the
next meeting will occur on August 17, 2017. All of these engagements,
as well as the regularly scheduled meetings related to ongoing Treaty
implementation, are venues for keeping the Columbia River Treaty at the
forefront of our Canadian counterparts' minds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Kennedy
Question. I understand that we have to be mindful of our spending.
However, you have considerable authority to work with OMB to have new
projects receive funds to begin construction. With Congress beginning
to pass water resources bills every 2 years, with a new one due next
year to authorize more projects nationwide, how will you address
prioritizing funds to newly authorized projects?
Answer. The Budget seeks each year to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from the available funds. For example, projects
that met the construction performance guidelines laid out on page 52 of
the fiscal year 2018 Civil Works Budget Press Book received priority
consideration for funding in the fiscal year 2018 Budget.
Question. As a follow-up to my last question, Louisiana has major
projects in Louisiana that need to begin construction immediately,
projects like, Morganza to the Gulf, Southwest Coastal, West Shore
Hurricane Protection System, and so on. In my opinion, we can spend
millions now to protect or spend billions later to recover. How are you
going to address this challenge to start putting shovels in the ground
and build these projects in a timely manner?
Answer. These projects will be considered for future funding along
with other programs, projects, and activities across the Nation in
competition for available Federal resources.
Question. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 408, as it
appears in the United States Code) granted the Corps broad authority to
invest and regulate waterways for the purposes of commerce and
navigation. It was not until the Flood Control Act of 1928 that the
Corps addressed their authority to regulate and invest in waterways for
flood control. The Flood Control Act, and subsequent revisions to it,
held that the Corps was an advisory authority to local levee districts
not a permitting authority. Congress has always held that flood control
is a matter best managed at the State and local level. The Corps has
been using Section 408 to stall dredge and fill permits, 404 permits.
This is holding up local levee boards in Louisiana, with costly and
lengthy environmental reviews that often takes years to complete in
order to get permits that otherwise should not exist. Meanwhile, people
are left vulnerable to flooding and are exposed to having to pay higher
flood insurance premiums. Given that the River and Harbors Act gave the
Corps the authority to regulate navigation, and the Flood Control Act
of 1928 gave the Corps the authority to regulate flood control, what is
the Corps doing to harmonize these two objectives?
Answer. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 includes several
sections that give the Corps of Engineers separate and distinct
authorities. Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
give the Corps the authority to regulate work and structures in
navigable waters in general. One of the primary purposes of those
sections was, and remains, maintaining the navigable capacity of U.S.
navigable waters, and preventing obstructions to navigation. Section 14
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, codified at 33 U.S.C. Section
408, gives the Secretary of the Army authority, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, to grant permission for the alteration, permanent
or temporary occupation, or use ``of any of the aforementioned public
works when in the judgment of the Secretary, such occupation or use
will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the
usefulness of such work.'' The Section 408 authority is limited to the
Corps' Congressionally-authorized Civil Works projects. Without
permission from the Corps, Section 408 expressly prohibits ``any person
or persons to take possession of or make use of for any purpose, or
build upon, alter, deface, destroy, move, injure, obstruct by fastening
vessels thereto or otherwise, or in any manner whatever impair the
usefulness of any sea wall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, pier,
or other work built by the United States.'' Thus, section 408 applies
to a wide range of works constructed by the Corps, and is not limited
to navigation structures. As part of the evaluation under Section 408,
the Corps considers whether any alteration or modification will impair
the usefulness of a given project, relying on previous Congressional
authorization. For example, in the case of flood control works on the
Mississippi River and its tributaries, authorized as part of the Flood
Control Act of 1928, the Corps ensures that any request under Section
408 to modify or alter those flood control works would be consistent
with any applicable requirements in the Flood Control Act of 1928.
The Corps is taking steps to address concerns about its
decisionmaking process under Section 408. In those cases where an
activity that requires Section 408 authorization also requires a
``dredge and fill permit'' under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
the Corps staff responsible for the Section 408 and Section 404 reviews
collaborate during their respective reviews, sharing information to
reduce duplication of effort. In these cases, the Corps will first
issues the Section 408 decision. It does so because the Section 404
implementing regulations prohibit the Corps from granting a Section 404
permit that could interfere with a Federal project, such as a Corps
Civil Works project. That determination occurs through the Section 408
review.
In addition, the Corps is evaluating and updating its policy and
procedures governing Section 408 permissions to better align with other
Corps authorities, institute timelines from Section 1156 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016, improve nationwide consistency, and
delegate decisionmaking to the appropriate level. The desired outcome
of this effort is greater efficiency and timeliness in decisionmaking,
without sacrificing the quality of the evaluation.
Question. Further, would having a 408 permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers have an impact on FEMA levee accreditations, which would
affect rates people pay through the National Flood Insurance Program?
Answer. Before a non-Federal sponsor who operates and maintains a
federally authorized levee can alter the levee, it is required to
receive a Section 408 approval from the Corps. For example, if a non-
Federal sponsor of such a levee wished to raise the height of the levee
or otherwise modify the levee to meet NFIP accreditation requirements,
it would first seek Section 408 permission from the Corps. A Section
408 permission can be granted if the levee raise does not impact the
usefulness of the levee or any other of the works covered by Section
408 and is not injurious to the public.
By contrast, if this non-Federal sponsor were instead to alter that
levee without receiving permission under Section 408, the alteration
could potentially contribute to an unacceptable levee system rating by
the Corps, which in turn could affect FEMA's determination on NFIP
accreditation.
Question. I want to broaden my questions regarding the National
Flood Insurance Program and the Corps role in how FEMA constructs their
flood maps. Can you tell me how the Corps plays a role in FEMA's
mapping process?
Answer. Both the Corps and FEMA have a long history of partnering
on flood plain mapping as part of the NFIP. Over the past 30 years, the
Corps has completed thousands of studies for FEMA related to
identifying the flood potential of various areas across the country.
These studies involved activities such as flood plain delineations and
detailed flood insurance studies. In August 2005, both agencies signed
an agreement that further streamlined the process for the Corps to
provide flood plain mapping and other related services to FEMA. In
addition, the Corps and FEMA have entered into subsequent agreements
that promote and foster information sharing and coordination between
the two agencies.
The Corps cooperates with FEMA and other Federal, State, and local
agencies through different avenues in support of FEMA's mapping
process. These include:
--Participating in joint meetings and coordination efforts;
--Providing best available hydraulic and hydrologic models and
topographic mapping;
--Performing new flood plain mapping studies or providing technical
assistance directly for FEMA using funds provided by FEMA under
the authority of the Economy Act;
--Working through partnerships with State and local governments under
the Floodplain Management Services (FPMS) or Planning
Assistance to States (PAS) Programs;
--Providing available dam and levee information collected through the
Corps Dam and Levee Safety Programs;
--Sharing information collected during more detailed flood risk
management studies; and Serving as an active and standing
member of the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC)--a
Federal advisory committee established to review and make
recommendations to FEMA on matters related to the national
flood mapping program authorized under the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012.
Question. Is there anything in statute that tells you that you are
unable to provide information on non-Federal levee systems,
deauthorized levees or flood risk reduction systems, or non- structural
surge protection (such as, wetlands, elevated railroads and highways,
etc.) for FEMA to take into consideration when they are calculating
risk drawing new flood maps and calculating risk?
Answer. No.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Cornyn
Question. The CCSC-CIP project has had to jump through several
hoops over the years, including Congressional reauthorization, a
determination of whether the remaining elements would be considered a
``new start,'' and a Limited Reevaluation Review (LRR).
The December 2015 Limited Reevaluation review states, ``Each of
these measures was individually justified and all are considered
separable elements.''
Are you familiar with this project's determination? Has that
determination pertaining to the project elements been changed?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the review. That determination has
not changed.
Question. In your opinion, would each separable element be
considered an individual project?
Answer. In this case, we concluded that Corpus Christi would not be
subject to a new start determination.
Based on that 2015 LRR, on page 103, the BCR for Separable Element
#1 (deepening and widening) at 7 percent is 2.64 to 1 and the Barge
Shelves is 18.29 to 1.
Question. In your opinion, would each of these projects
individually meet the Budgetary Construction Performance Guideline
requiring a 2.5 to 1 BCR established by your office?
Answer. For purposes of the Budget, the BCR for the entire project
is what is used to justify projects in the Budget on the basis of their
economic return.
Question. Would each of these projects require a ``new start''
determination to receive Federal dollars?
Answer. No.
Section 1146 specifically states,
``With respect to a water resources development project that has
received construction funds in the previous 6-year period, for purposes
of initiating work on a separable element of the project--
(1) no new start or new investment decision shall be required; and
(2) the work shall be treated as ongoing work.''
Question. Therefore, if each of these projects are considered
separable elements per the 2015 LRR and there has been no change in
statute making these two elements one single project, please explain
why the Corps is requiring another economic review to determine a total
project BCR for budgetary purposes rather than using the individual
BCRs for each separable element?
Answer. It is standard practice in the Budget for all budgeted
projects funded on the basis of their economic return to meet a minimum
BCR of 2.5 at a 7 percent discount rate for the whole project.
As I understand it, both of these projects--as separable elements--
clearly meet the budget criteria set by your office, individually and
together, yet have been passed over for Federal funding.
Question. Please explain the reason for this as I have constituents
in my State depending on this project to increase jobs and grow our
economy.
Answer. The Corps completed a reevaluation of the economics for
this project, and determined that the BCR for the whole project is
currently 2.65 at a 7 percent discount rate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Isakson
Question. In several cases in your fiscal year 2017 work plan you
chose to initiate new deep draft navigation construction projects using
the additional funding provided by Congress for fiscal year 2017 rather
than using those funds to advance and complete construction of projects
already underway. It would seem that a more prudent business decision
would have been to finish ongoing projects as efficiently and quickly
as possible so that the Nation can begin realizing the projects'
benefits. Do you believe that the language in the fiscal year 2017
appropriations act compelled you to initiate those new projects in the
work plan rather than simply permitting you to do so?
Answer. No.
Question. Considering the number of deep-draft navigation projects
that have been authorized but have not begun construction, and
considering the fact that your fiscal year 2018 budget request made
significant cuts to the Corps compared to prior year budgets, why did
you add new projects in the work plan rather than fund on-going
projects to their full capability?
Answer. We do not expect there to be any out-year Federal funding
requirements for the Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky or the
Tampa Harbor, Big Bend, Florida projects. The non-Federal sponsors for
both the Charleston Harbor and Jacksonville Harbor projects have
advanced funds agreements either pending or in place, which will allow
them to fund these projects.
Question. Did your office verify that all projects funded in the
fiscal year 2017 work plan could fully utilize the allocated funds
during fiscal year 2017? If any project is unable to do so, can the
committee be assured that remaining funds would be redirected to other
projects which are able to utilize those funds in fiscal year 2017?
Answer. Projects were provided more funds in some cases to complete
a useful increment of work.
Question. Does the inefficiency of under-funding ongoing projects
below standard Corps capability add to the cost of completing those
projects?
Answer. There are many variables that impact cost growth on
construction projects. Cost growth has been a systemic concern, which
receives senior leadership attention across a wide spectrum of
projects. As part of this effort, the Corps has established Cost
Control Boards for projects whose cost increases exceed a set
percentage of the overall project cost in a single year.
Question. 5: On average, how much longer would it take you to
complete on-going deep draft coastal navigation projects based on
continuing the current reduced level of funding as compared to funding
those projects to standard full capability?
Answer. We do not have such an estimate. Funding streams and
sources vary considerably across projects and years, and are not
limited to the funds requested in the Budgets.
______
Questions Submitted to Mr. Alan Mikkelsen
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
subsidence/friant kern canal
Question. Subsidence is a severe problem in California's San
Joaquin Valley. Many areas have dropped by 18 to 24 inches in just the
last few years alone due to the drought and excessive water pumping.
In some cases, this subsidence has damaged the ability of Federal
and State infrastructure to operate properly. For example, subsidence
has reduced the water carrying capacity of the Friant- Kern Canal by 60
percent in some places, severely disrupting water supply and
groundwater recharge operations throughout the Friant Division of the
Central Valley Project.
Mr. Mikkelsen, I know that Reclamation is working on this problem.
What resources and authorities does Reclamation have or need to address
this problem in both the short-term and the long-term?
Answer. Reclamation is working with the Friant Division long-term
contractors to better understand the subsidence challenge along the
Friant-Kern Canal and determine possible means of addressing the
situation. In 2010, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program evaluated
flow constrictions along the entire canal. Preliminary analysis
determined that authorized funding was not enough to fix the full
length of the canal and therefore, the analysis was focused on the
first constraints in the upstream sections of the canal with the goal
of achieving the broadest benefits to the majority of the Friant
contractors. Further analysis of these upstream constraints indicated
that authorized funding was not enough to fix this section. Reclamation
put the project on hold to conserve the authorized funding and began
working with the Friant contractors to explore other opportunities to
increase the available water supply to the Friant contractors.
After several years of extreme drought, downstream portions of the
canal dropped up to three feet between approximately Mile Posts 98 to
112. In January 2017, flows of 1,900 cubic feet per second or less than
half the design maximum capacity wetted the bottom of five bridges
downstream from Mile Post 98.
In early 2017, Reclamation began working with the Friant
contractors to better understand this subsidence challenge. As part of
this new effort, Reclamation recently completed a brainstorming session
with the Friant contractors and is working with the contractors on next
steps. Reclamation has a variety of resources and authorities to
address the subsidence challenge, each of these with their own pros and
cons for Reclamation and the Friant contractors to consider. As we are
very early in identifying the challenge and possible solutions in this
area of the canal, we have not yet assessed our full suite of resources
and authorities to determine if we have the resources and authorities
to address the problem in the short-term and long-term.
Question. I believe the Bureau of Reclamation absolutely must
invest in new groundwater recharge projects to prevent further
subsidence. I understand you can do so through the Drought Response
Program within WaterSMART as well as the new storage program created in
the WIIN Act.
Mr. Mikkelsen, what actions have you taken to identify the most
effective groundwater recharge projects and to prioritize them for
funding?
Answer. In April 2015, Reclamation completed an ``Investment
Strategy'' as part of our efforts to implement the Water Management
Goal under the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. This effort
included a variety of projects, including groundwater recharge
projects, that work to increase water supply or more efficiently use
the existing supplies in the Friant Division of the Central Valley
Project. The Investment Strategy is available here: http://
www.restoresjr.net/download/program-documents/program-docs-2015/
FinalInvestmentStrategy_20150403.pdf.
Reclamation developed the Investment Strategy to identify projects
that, in conjunction with other activities occurring to support the
Restoration Program's Water Management Goal, could cost effectively
reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term
contractors as a result of the Restoration Program. A prioritized list
of implementable projects was developed, evaluated, and prepared to
help achieve this goal. Projects evaluated for the Investment Strategy
were ranked on their cost-effective ability to reduce impacts from the
Restoration Program. However, this ranking is widely applicable and
identifies the most effective projects, including groundwater recharge
projects, which could also work to increase water supply or more
efficiently use the existing supplies in the Friant Division.
revisions to biological opinions
Question. Last year, the Bureau of Reclamation started the process
of revising the biological opinions for California's Central Valley
Project and State Water Project.
I believe there is an opportunity here for a win-win outcome that
would benefit both the water users and the endangered salmon and smelt.
And that is focusing on some of the other factors besides water pumping
that harm the fish: factors like pollutants, predators, poor habitat,
and lack of food supply.
Mr. Mikkelsen, how are you prioritizing and investing in the
science necessary to address pollutants, predators, and these other
factors aside from water pumping that responsible for harm to fish?
Answer. Reclamation science funding is focused primarily on habitat
improvement and food supply augmentation. Work on pollutants and
predation has received lower priority in part because it is being
supported by other partner entities (e.g., California Department of
Water Resources--CA DWR, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board,
Delta Regional Monitoring Program, and the State and Federal
Contractors Water Agency.
The science focused on habitat restoration includes: studies in
support of a Reclamation- led effort to reintroduce winter-run Chinook
salmon upstream of Shasta dam (a requirement under the National Marine
Fisheries Service 2009 biological opinion); studies documenting salmon
response to spawning gravel and side-channel enhancement projects in
the upper Sacramento, American and Stanislaus rivers (in coordination
with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Anadromous Fish
Restoration Program); research in support of efforts to improve fish
passage through and habitat quality in the Yolo bypass; and research on
physical and biological process operating in the Cache Slough complex,
to support tidal wetland restoration called for in the 2008 Fish and
Wildlife Service biological opinion.
On the food supply front, Reclamation provides partial funding for
a CA DWR-led effort to study the effects of re-routed Colusa basin
drain water on phytoplankton, and zooplankton production in the North
Delta (part of the Delta Smelt Resiliency Plan); and is working closely
with the City and Port of West Sacramento on a study to assess the
viability of routing Sacramento River water down the Sacramento Ship
Channel to boost Bay-Delta phytoplankton and zooplankton production.
This effort also includes water quality and fish passage improvement
components.
water storage projects
Question. Between the recent $2.7 billion bond measure passed by
California voters and the WIIN Act passed by Congress last year, we
finally have the opportunity to build major surface and groundwater
storage projects.
The WIIN Act authorizes $335 million for Reclamation to partner
with States to build these projects, and Congress funded the first $67
million tranche of storage funding in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus.
Mr. Mikkelsen, what steps have you taken to ensure that Reclamation
will finish its feasibility studies as quickly as possible so that you
can submit recommendations to Congress on which storage projects should
receive Federal funding?
Answer. Reclamation has compressed surface storage feasibility
investigation schedules for CALFED storage Feasibility Reports as
follows: The North-of-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation Draft
Feasibility Report was provided to the Sites Joint Powers Authority
(SPA) in July 2017, to support their Proposition 1 funding application.
We are currently planning to provide revised reports to the SPA in
August 2018, to support coordination on the State funding decision. For
the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, the
Feasibility Report is being amended to include a locally-preferred
alternative operational scenario and our current plan is to make that
report available in August 2018. Los Vaqueros Phase 2 is planned for
completion in December 2018. Reclamation is also considering other
eligible projects in the 17 Western States for funding recommendations
to Congress. Final recommendations are subject to final review and
approval within the Administration. Nevertheless, we will continue to
work diligently to complete studies within the times set out by
Congress.
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, have you begun engaging with the State of
California in order to align your Federal process and funding timelines
with California's?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation is closely coordinating with the local
Joint Powers Authorities and realigning schedules to meet California
Water Commission (CWC) timeframes. Water Storage Investment Program
applications for the three aforementioned surface storage
investigations will be submitted to the CWC on August 14, 2017, to meet
the requirements of Proposition 1 bond funding. These applications will
include study information developed for the Federal feasibility reports
that are nearing completion. State funding decisions on cost-share for
these projects are expected from the CWC in mid-2018.
desalination funding
Question. Given the recent drought and the need to prepare for the
next drought, California must invest in new water infrastructure. I am
convinced that desalination is a key part of that infrastructure.
Desalination is still expensive, but graphene and other technological
breakthroughs to replace the current reverse osmosis process are within
our grasp.
Congress passed the WIIN Act last December, which included new
authorities for the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a competitive
grant program for desalination. In the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus,
Congress then appropriated $6 million for this new desalination grant
program.
Mr. Mikkelsen, will you commit to expedite Reclamation's
development of evaluation criteria for the desalination program and
recommend specific desalination projects for funding as quickly as
possible?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation is committed to expediting the
implementation of new programs from the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation, or WIIN, Act amendments, including a new
desalination grant program. The framework for the desalination program
is already under development and Reclamation expects to post a funding
opportunity announcement for desalination projects in the second
quarter of fiscal year 2018. Reclamation believes this schedule will
allow for additional outreach and will result in a larger pool of
eligible applicants.
Reclamation will satisfy the intent of Congress with regard to
construction under the WIIN desalination provision with the $6 million
provided.
In addition, and as you stated in your question, desalination is
still expensive, but technological breakthroughs to replace the current
reverse osmosis process may be within our grasp. The Administration
believes that an important Federal role within sectors such as this one
is to fund high-risk, high-reward basic research that has the potential
to achieve breakthroughs that can revolutionize current processes and
provide broad public benefits. To this end, a significant portion of
Reclamation's R&D funding under the Desalination and Water Purification
Research program will be set aside for these types of research
projects, and such projects will receive special consideration relative
to funding additional work at traditional and expensive desalination
projects.
water recycling projects
Question. Commissioner Mikkelsen, section 4009(g)(2) of the WIIN
Act says that water reuse projects that have a completed feasibility
study can ``only receive funding if enacted appropriations legislation
designates funding to them by name, after the Secretary recommends
specific projects for funding pursuant to subsection (f),'' which
mandates that the Secretary establish a new water reuse competitive
grant program, ``and transmits such recommendations to the appropriate
committees of Congress.''
Mr. Mikkelsen, what steps are you taking to complete these
requirements, submit your recommendations for the water reuse projects
that should receive funding, and do so in time for this Committee to
consider and act upon your recommendations in the fiscal year 2018
appropriations process?
Answer. Reclamation posted a funding opportunity announcement for
WIIN Act water recycling projects on July 17, 2017. In order to meet
the appropriations schedule, the funding opportunity is open for a
limited time-frame of 30 days, with applications for funding due on
August 17, 2017.
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, I worked very hard to expand Title XVI in
the WIIN Act so that Reclamation could partner with local water
agencies to accelerate work on a number of important, large-scale,
regional water reuse projects throughout California and the West. We
need the Secretary's recommendations by the end of September. The
implications of missing our deadline is that implementation will be
delayed until fiscal year 2019. That's unacceptable.
Mr. Mikkelsen, will you commit to sending this Committee your
recommendations, as required by the WIIN Act, before October 1?
Answer. Reclamation has an accelerated schedule in place to
complete the competitive selection process required by the statute as
soon as possible. An expedited review will be conducted with the fiscal
year 2018 appropriations process in mind.
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, I am also concerned about reports that
Reclamation may seek to limit the eligibility for funding under any
Funding Opportunities Announcement to implement the new Title XVI WIIN
Act authority. I understand there have been discussions within
Reclamation to limit applicants to those entities with a completed and
approved water reuse Feasibility Study several months prior to the
release of the FOA.
Please confirm that any water reuse project that has a completed
and Reclamation- approved water reuse Feasibility Study on or before
the deadline for responses to the FOA will be eligible to respond and
receive funds made available for this new initiative in fiscal year
2017.
Answer. The FOA that Reclamation posted on July 17, 2017 states
that a project must have a Reclamation-reviewed feasibility study and
the findings of Reclamation's review must have been transmitted to
Congress by the date that the FOA was posted (i.e., July 17, 2017). The
initial list of eligible projects was provided to Congress on July 12,
2017. Completed feasibility studies up to July 3, 2017, were included
in the letter to Congress. Accordingly, under Reclamation's approach,
entities with feasibility studies that were found complete just two
weeks before the FOA was released, are eligible to apply for funding.
This approach ensures clarity for project sponsors so that no applicant
spends resources to prepare a proposal until review of the feasibility
study for that project has been completed.
san joaquin river restoration program
Question. In 2015, Reclamation's ``Revised Framework for
Implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program''
identified a remaining Federal funding need of approximately $1.1
billion to implement the program by 2029 (2015 Revised Framework for
Implementation, Table 3-7, page 3-12). Reclamation's Framework also
said that the existing appropriations authorization for the program is
insufficient. (Framework Table 3-7; Reclamation Commissioner's
responses to questions on the fiscal year 2016 budget, question 8, page
4).
Mr. Mikkelsen, how does Reclamation plan to address this funding
need?
Answer. Reclamation is currently leading a collaborative effort
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California
Department of Water Resources to implement the San Joaquin River
Restoration Program. Through these partnerships, along with the parties
to the Settlement in NRDC, et al., v. Rodgers, et al., and the
downstream landowners and water districts (generally referred to as the
``Third Parties''), Reclamation will be able to determine the
Restoration Program actions that can be achieved within the Program's
current and anticipated future funding sources. We are working to
ensure that this effort identifies a realistic and achievable path
forward for the Restoration Program. We anticipate completing this
effort in early November 2017.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, farmers in the Odessa Subarea of the
Columbia Basin Project have faced significant challenges for several
years as groundwater from the aquifer has been declining. This rapid
decline has put agriculture production and commercial, municipal, and
industrial water uses at risk. According to a study conducted by
Washington State University, $840 million and 3,600 jobs are at risk if
agriculture producers in the Odessa Subarea no longer have access to
groundwater from the aquifer and no alternative water solution is in
place.
I appreciate your ongoing work with the State of Washington and the
impacted irrigation districts to prevent further depletion of the
Odessa Subarea aquifer and deliver much needed surface water to
agricultural lands within the Columbia Basin Project. Renewing the
Master Water Service Contract with the East Columbia Basin Irrigation
District (ECBID) in 2015 was a significant milestone in this process.
This ensured ECBID could move forward with the development of the first
of seven planned pressurized delivery systems to provide surface water
to 87,700 acres of the Odessa Subarea in the Columbia Basin Project. I
understand that additional amendments to the Master Water Service
Contract are needed. What is the current status of this amendment and
when do you expect it to be completed?
Answer. The Renewal Master Water Service Contract (RMWSC) provided
ECBID sufficient water for the 47.5 system, the first of what is
expected to be eight lateral systems, this one currently designed to
deliver water to about 8,500 acres, which is currently under
construction. Depending on what system they start next, ECBID may have
sufficient water for that as well. Also, Reclamation plans to amend the
RMWSC to authorize ECBID to provide irrigation water service to an
additional 70,000 acres in order to provide the full groundwater
replacement to 87,700 acres within the Odessa Subarea. Reclamation sent
a proposed contract amendment covering the 70,000 acres to ECBID in
October 2016. The ECBID provided verbal feedback to Reclamation in
January 2017. Two public negotiation sessions were held on July 17,
2017 and July 24, 2017; both parties have agreed to some minor language
changes and are currently in the process of exchanging revised language
for a few other sections. ECBID has also requested that Reclamation
consider several water service proposals that are outside the current
scope of the contract. Approval of these proposals would require
additional environmental compliance, a change to the existing
negotiation parameters for the contract amendment, and in some cases
policy changes. Reclamation is currently awaiting a response from ECBID
as to whether or not they desire to have Reclamation consider these
additional proposals now, which could delay execution of the contract
amendment by at least 6 months, or if they want to proceed with
finalizing the RMWSC amendment for the 70,000 acres now and address
these additional proposals through a separate amendment. If ECBID
chooses to defer their additional requests to another amendment, we
anticipate being able to execute a revised contract amendment within 2
months of being notified of their decision.
Question. Staying on the subject of the Odessa Subarea, I
understand that in its current form the ``Record of Decision for the
Odessa Subarea Special Study Final Environmental Impact Statement''
prevents the Bureau of Reclamation from including funding for the
Odessa Subarea project in its annual budget request and also from using
funding provided by Congress for Additional Funding for Ongoing Work
within the Water and Related Resources account. Further, I understand
that in order to consider Federal funding for the Odessa Subarea
project, the Bureau of Reclamation would need to reevaluate the
financial and economic justifications and essentially update the
benefit-cost ratio. The East Columbia Basin Irrigation District has
requested a review of the benefit-cost ratio, and has provided the
Bureau of Reclamation with documentation. Mr. Mikkelsen, what is the
current status of the Bureau's review of the benefit-cost ratio and
when do you expect it to be completed?
Answer. The Record of Decision prevented Federal funding because
the benefit-cost ratio was less than 1:1. Reclamation has been
carefully reviewing this information and determining the best course of
action, keeping in mind time constraints and costs. Reclamation will
then inform ECBID, the State of Washington, and other stakeholders of
the outcome of this review and our path forward.
Question. Nearly 3 years after the Northwest reached a regional
consensus to modernize the Columbia River Treaty, the U.S. notified
Canada of our intent to begin formal negotiations on the Treaty. Since
October 2016, we have been waiting for Canada to come to the table.
Mr. Mikkelsen, I urge you to proactively raise the Columbia River
Treaty at every opportunity with your Canadian counterparts. Do I have
your commitment to do that?
Answer. While Reclamation is not the entity responsible for
negotiations, the entities involved are the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and the United States
Department of State, I will encourage my Canadian counterparts to
participate in negotiations as soon as possible, whenever the
opportunity arises.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
tribal water settlements
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, in your testimony you mentioned a number
of times the importance of maintaining our commitments to tribes by
fully funding Tribal water settlements. I could not agree more. I did
notice however that the fiscal year 2018 budget proposes to cut funding
for the Navajo- Gallup Water Settlement by over $20 million dollars
compared to fiscal year 2017.
In addition, there are major reductions in funding to other tribes
in the BIA water settlements' account to operate and maintain water
projects that were built according to the terms of the settlements and
whose construction was paid for from BOR's funds.
Let's be clear, we need to support all our Tribal water
settlements. And we should not cannibalize some settlements in order to
start others. But we need to do so in a way that will not undermine the
solid progress projects like Navajo-Gallup have made and will not shift
funds to the out-years. I am leery of shifting our annual
responsibility to these settlement to the out-years--like a balloon
payment on a mortgage, as this budget proposes.
Knowing the members of this committee, I believe they will want to
uphold our commitments to the tribes--and we'll work to find money for
all the projects which Congress has authorized.
Will you commit to equitably allocating and distributing that money
to all the projects, as Congress directs?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is committed to fulfilling all of
our Tribal water settlements within the times specified within the
individual public laws governing their completion as specified by
Congress.
Specifically with respect to the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply
Project, the project is on schedule to complete its work by the end of
2024. The President's budget request for the project in fiscal year
2018, though somewhat less than in past years, is supplemented by the
remaining mandatory funds that were made available by Congress under
Title VII of the Claims Resolution Act, Public Law 111-291.
Question. And will you commit to keep budgets honest and putting
those costs in over a number of years--not just shifting them to the
out-years in future budgets?
Answer. Yes, we will, both for prudent budgetary considerations and
for maintaining efficient and timely construction schedules. Congress
specifies the time by which the construction portion of the water
rights settlements is to be met. Once the planning is complete and
other laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, are met,
construction, to be efficient, must be maintained at reasonable levels
and that requires a sufficient appropriation.
For example, in a non-construction water rights settlement, the
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights, Reclamation was required to make
available $20.0 million by the end of fiscal year 2016. Both the BIA
and Reclamation fulfilled, in addition to the monetary requirements,
all of the conditions precedent. The Secretary issued the public notice
that the conditions precedent had been met in late 2016. The $20.0
million was budgeted by Reclamation and appropriated by Congress over a
period of 5 years at a rate of about $4.0 million per year.
navajo generating station
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, I noticed yesterday that an agreement was
reached in order to keep the Navajo Generating Station open for two
more years--until 2019--which is very helpful to those communities in
the short term. Thank you for going out and listening to them about
their needs and concerns.
I am concerned however, that in the long run, changes in operation
at the Navajo Generating Station will drastically shift the economy of
the four corners region. And yet there has been little planning in the
region to prepare for a transition. Because of the Federal Government's
tribal trust, fiduciary, and environmental responsibilities, the
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation have been key
to the discussions on the future of NGS.
What options are being considered for workforce planning and
transition when and if, the NGS and/or other power plants in the region
close?
Answer. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) have interacted extensively with Arizona
stakeholders who benefit from or who are impacted by Navajo Generating
Station (NGS) operations. Forty-plus years of coal-fired electric
generation in northeastern Arizona has produced a regional coal-centric
economy. Southwestern electric utilities, however, are adapting to
changes in the energy market which over the past 10 years have resulted
in substantial retirements and reductions of coal generation
facilities.
The Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe have initiated accelerated steps
to address economic development and diversification in northeastern
Arizona by requesting government-to- government consultations and
technical assistance from Federal agencies and universities.
Reclamation has enlisted energy market experts and provided financial
and technical assistance to both tribes. Reclamation has an extensive
history working with northeastern Arizona stakeholders investigating
water development. In order to support workforce planning and
transition, Reclamation has provided technical assistance to the tribes
in the development of renewable energy generation and regional water
supply on the reservations. The tribes have requested specific
assistance in planning which is required for economic development and
diversification. The NGS replacement lease (July 2017) contains
provisions for the Navajo Nation to obtain ownership of various plant
assets (the Lake Powell water pumping station, coal supply train,
buildings and transmission access) as part of an economic development
roadmap.
Reclamation's technical assistance team includes the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory and universities with energy development
expertise. The Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and the Reclamation team are
actively investigating water and electric generation project
development as part of a transition strategy in response to changing
NGS operations.
Question. How can we work together to make sure we are putting
tribes, taxpayers and the environment first in addressing this issue?
Answer. On March 1, 2017, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
Reclamation initiated a facilitated stakeholder process to evaluate
future NGS operations options. Several subgroups were formulated to
simultaneously; (1) develop terms and conditions for operation of the
NGS to the end of 2019 and, if necessary, decommission thereafter; (2)
research potential owners and energy buyers to continue operations
post-2019; and (3) identify strategies to minimize the socio- economic
impacts of a potential NGS closure.
On July 1, 2017, the Navajo Nation approved an extension lease that
provides for operation of the NGS through December 2019. This 2 year
period (2017-2019) provides additional time for the parties to seek new
owners. If no new owner(s) are identified, the plant will begin
decommissioning at that time.
In 2013, NGS stakeholders formulated a Technical Working Group \1\
and crafted an agreement containing DOI commitments to develop
strategies to minimize economic impacts to the Navajo Nation and the
Hopi Tribe from the closure of the NGS. In accordance with the
commitments outlined in the NGS Technical Working Group Agreement,
Reclamation allocated funds \2\ and executed financial assistance
agreements \3\ to support tribal planning of water and renewable energy
generation development as part of an economic transition initiative.
Reclamation's authorities are limited to planning assistance which is
funded through Central Arizona Project appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2013 NGS Technical Working Group Agreement: Department of
Interior, Gila River Indian Community, Navajo Nation, Central Arizona
Water Conservation District, Environmental Defense Fund, Western
Resource Advocates and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District.
\2\ Central Arizona Project--Operation and Maintenance Oversight.
\3\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory--Interagency Agreement
$2.7M; Navajo Nation--Cooperative Agreement ($200,000); Hopi Tribe--
Cooperative Agreement ($200,000) and Gila River Indian Community--
Cooperative Agreement ($250,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Reclamation's authority, several other Government
agencies (e.g., Department of Energy and Bureau of Indian Affairs) have
authority to work with the tribes to develop strategies for economic
development into the future. The formulation and support of a
northeastern Arizona economic transition working group that includes
Reclamation along with these and other agencies, could focus the
objectives and tasks, improve communication, and coordinate resources
needed to support workforce planning and transition.
aamodt settlement
Question. As you know, the Aamodt settlement was the culmination of
the longest running water dispute in United States history. The
settlement brought together the City and County of Santa Fe, four
pueblos, and the State--no small feat. As a result, the pueblos are
secure in their water rights and the non-pueblos are secure in their
water supplies. But like many water settlements, the devil is in the
details. And there is much work to be done to implement this
settlement.
Mr. Mikkelsen, you met with my staff recently, and I understand
that you will be lead on this settlement.
Can you give me your assurances that you will make full
implementation of the Aamodt water settlement a priority of yours and
this Administration?
Answer. The Administration and Bureau of Reclamation are committed
to fulfilling all of our Tribal water settlements, including the Aamodt
Litigation Settlement, within the times specified by the individual
public laws governing their completion as specified by Congress. All of
the parties involved in the settlement have been working diligently to
complete a final design and plan for the Pojoaque Regional Water
System. The Pojoaque Regional Water System is the portion of the
overall Aamodt Litigation Settlement for which the Bureau of
Reclamation is responsible. In fiscal year 2018, this project is
expected to begin land acquisition and begin construction after
completing a Record of Decision and final designs.
gila river diversion
Question. Mr. Mikkelsen, in 2004, Congress passed the Arizona Water
Settlements Act. The Act gave New Mexico $66 million dollars in funds
and 10 years to decide how to use Federal money to meet water needs in
four rural counties.
In 2014, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission voted to
pursue a water diversion at the headwaters of the Gila River--is one of
the last undammed rivers in the West--rather than focus the money on
water efficiency for agricultural and municipal users, community water
systems and restoration projects--projects all allowed under the law.
Currently, the New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project is
working with the Bureau of Reclamation to identify a viable diversion
option. And has until 2019 to complete the planning and design of the
Gila Diversion. As I understand it, the New Mexico Unit intends to
submit a series of plans by fall to the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct an environmental review, as outlined by the Act.
There are estimates a diversion dam could cost a billion dollars to
construct. Something I don't foresee the Federal Government funding.
Do you agree the Federal Government is unlikely to appropriate this
level of funding for big new water projects in this fiscal environment?
Answer. Reclamation does not plan on seeking any Federal
discretionary appropriations for construction of the New Mexico Unit
(Unit).
The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA) provided $66 million
(indexed) from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund
(Development Fund) to be transferred into the State's New Mexico Unit
Fund for construction of a Unit or for other water utilization
alternatives in southwest New Mexico. An additional $34 million
(indexed) from the Development Fund may be available for construction
of a Unit if a Record of Decision is issued by the Secretary of the
Interior approving the project based on an environmental analysis. The
AWSA identified an additional, $28 million (indexed) which could be
available for construction, depending on earnings in the Development
Fund, which, based on current earnings is unlikely. To date, six annual
payments of $9.04 million each have been transferred to the New Mexico
Unit Fund totaling $54.2 million. The New Mexico Unit Fund is
administered by New Mexico's Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC).
If New Mexico and the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity
(Entity), as beneficiaries of the project, choose to pursue a project
that will cost more than is available under the AWSA, they will need to
provide any additional funding required for the project.
In the past, several diversion, conveyance, and off-stream storage
options were identified. The highest cost options included diversion,
reservoirs and pumping water to the Deming, N.M. area. In July 2016,
the Entity submitted their proposed Unit action, a diversion and
storage project to provide water for agricultural purposes in the
Cliff-Gila Valley. We understand they are now revising that project,
striving to limit project construction costs to funding available under
the AWSA. Reclamation expects to receive an updated project proposal
later this fall.
In 2014 and 2015, the NMISC voted to fund other water utilization
alternatives (non-NM Unit) in southwest New Mexico totaling $9.1
million. The projects include water conveyance improvements, effluent
reuse, conservation projects and improvements to an existing diversion
on the Gila River.
In addition, one of our duties as public officials is to assure
that the funds of the American people are spent wisely, with proper
oversight and transparency.
Question. Will you commit that you and, if confirmed, Brenda Burman
the nominee to run the Bureau of Reclamation, will keep an eye out for
taxpayers as Bureau of Reclamation analyzes the options for this
project?
Answer. Yes, in support of our mission to manage, develop, and
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
Reclamation will complete the required environmental compliance and
appropriate technical analyses necessary to provide information to the
Secretary of the Interior for use in the Record of Decision.
Question. And, because my staff and I have received incomplete
information, would you commit to providing us with updates on how much
money is being spent by the Interstate Stream Commission and New Mexico
Entity and on what?
Answer. Funding provided by Reclamation to the New Mexico Unit Fund
would be from the Lower Colorado Region Basin Development Fund as
required by the AWSA. This funding would be non-discretionary funding
as Reclamation must follow the payment schedule provided in the AWSA,
and is not subject to the annual appropriations process. Once the
funding is transferred to the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC),
Reclamation believes we do not have an oversight role in the spending.
If desired, Reclamation can provide an accounting of payments made to
the State's New Mexico Unit Fund. The State's New Mexico Unit Fund
budgets and expenditures are available through the CAP Entity and ISC
meeting materials as well as an annual report that the ISC submits to
the legislature for the NM Unit Fund. This report is located at http://
nmawsa.org/library/reports/.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Hoeven. The written statements of each of our
witnesses will be included in the record.
And again, thank you, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]