    [Senate Hearing 116-218]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-218

      IMPROVING AMERICAN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH WATER RESOURCES
                         INFRASTRUCTURE: FEDERAL PANEL

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 23, 2019
                                   __________

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

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    40-658 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                OCTOBER 23, 2019
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Fisher, Ryan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
      for Civil Works, and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
      Civil Works....................................................     4
        Prepared statement of Mr. R.D. James, General Semonite, and
          Ms. Bertrand...............................................     7
    Semonite, Lieutenant General Todd, Commanding General and Chief
      of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.....................    10
    Bertrand, Charlotte, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy,
      Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency..........    12

      IMPROVING AMERICAN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH WATER RESOURCES
                         INFRASTRUCTURE: FEDERAL PANEL

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Cramer,
    Braun, Rounds, Sullivan, Wicker, Ernst, Merkley, Gillibrand,
    Markey, and Duckworth.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        There is one change in the agenda. Unfortunately, R.D.
    James will not be able to join us this morning to testify. In
    his place to testify is Ryan Fisher, the Principal Deputy
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and Acting
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
        So Deputy Assistant Secretary Fisher, welcome. We are glad
    you could join us today.
        Last month, this Committee held our first hearing on the
    importance of passing a new Water Resource Development Act for
    2020. This legislation authorizes projects and funding for the
    Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program.
        At last month's hearing, we held from a panel of
    stakeholders that included cattle ranchers and farmers. We also
    heard from witnesses involved in marine construction and port
    operations, and ecosystem restoration projects.
        Today we are going to be hearing from the Army Corps on how
    we can best address water infrastructure needs and the
    challenges in upcoming legislation. It is also a chance for
    Committee members to conduct oversight into the implementation
    of programs and projects that were enacted in America's Water
    Infrastructure Act which was passed by this Committee and
    signed into law in 2018.
        America's Water Infrastructure Act included numerous EPA
    water and wastewater infrastructure authorizations. Today we
    will be hearing from the EPA on the implementation of those
    provisions.
        This Committee has established a tradition of working
    across the political aisle to pass meaningful water
    infrastructure legislation every 2 years. We did it in both
    2014 and in 2016 under Senator Inhofe's chairmanship. We did it
    again in 2018 with America's Water Infrastructure Act, which
    passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 99 to 1. I look
    forward to doing the same again in 2020.
        New water resources legislation in 2020 should continue to
    prioritize flood prevention and the modernization of our
    Nation's levee systems. This will protect lives and property.
        For example, this spring we saw homes and farms and fields
    across all of Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, the river basins
    destroyed as a result of extreme rainfall and rapid snowmelt.
    Billions of dollars in economic losses were incurred by
    America's farmers and homeowners.
        This bill should also ensure that western States continue
    to have adequate water supplies. Wyoming is a good example of
    how critical water supply really is, not only for drinking
    water, but also for ranching and for farming. As I said in our
    September hearing, water is the cornerstone of Wyoming's
    economy.
        The Army Corps needs to prioritize the implementation of
    America's Water Infrastructure Act provisions to increase water
    storage capacity. The provisions will reduce sediment in
    reservoirs, increasing access to water for western States.
        This Committee should also continue to be proactive in
    combating the threat posed by invasive species. Invasive
    species exist on land and in the water. They significantly
    degrade water quality and availability for farmers, ranchers,
    and native species, and rural communities all across America.
    Species such as the zebra mussels that clog water
    infrastructure; Russian olive and salt cedar steal precious
    groundwater.
        This bill should also continue the tradition of authorizing
    important projects that will increase the navigability of our
    Nation's waterways. Our Nation's inland waterways in particular
    are a vital commercial network that transports agriculture
    goods, raw materials, and products from middle America to the
    coasts and beyond. These projects are vital to the economic
    health of our country, and will keep America's economy strong.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass
    bipartisan water infrastructure legislation in 2020.
        With that, I would like to turn to Ranking Member Carper
    for his testimony.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, everyone, and welcome, one and all.
        My thanks again to you, Mr. Chairman; to our colleagues,
    Senator Inhofe and Senator Cardin; and to your staffs for
    working with us to improve America's water infrastructure.
        Last Congress, I am proud to say we worked together in a
    bipartisan way, much as we had in previous years under the
    leadership of Chairman Inhofe and Barbara Boxer, to address
    major challenges to our country's water infrastructure.
    However, we still have work ahead of us.
        I believe that every American deserves equal access to
    clean, safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water. That is
    why I believe our Committee must continue to conduct oversight
    on the implementation of the 2018 law, and act, if needed, to
    refine the Federal programs that are essential to achieving
    that important goal.
        Earlier this year, our Committee held a hearing with
    stakeholders to kick off the WRDA 2020 process. I expect that
    today will be a continuation of that hearing and provide us
    with yet another opportunity to reflect on the last WRDA bill
    as we look ahead to the next one.
        Let me begin by raising an issue that bears repeating.
    During the drafting process for the last WRDA, this Committee
    repeatedly heard that the Office of Management and Budget
    micromanages the Corps of Engineers. There continues to be a
    troubling lack of transparency with respect to how OMB reviews
    Corps projects. This concern was echoed by both the Republican
    and Democratic witnesses last month.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to submit for the record witness
    testimony from Jamey Sanders, Vice President for the Choctaw
    Transportation Company, who testified last month on behalf of
    the Associated General Contractors of America.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
        In his statement, Mr. Sanders called on Congress to
    ``reform the benefit-cost analyses and eliminate duplicative
    and confusing accounting process,'' that is used by OMB. The
    benefit-cost analyses to which Mr. Sanders is referring is the
    tool that OMB and the Corps use to prioritize projects, and we
    have heard repeatedly from stakeholders that this method of
    prioritization fails to capture all of a project's benefits,
    because it considers only national economic impacts.
        All of this means that the Corps' budget and work plans
    often fail to include projects that would address critical
    needs in smaller, coastal, rural, disadvantaged, and tribal
    communities.
        As I understand it, Assistant Secretary James has been
    working diligently with his team to implement the 2018 law,
    including fulfilling many reporting and transparency
    requirements.
        However, OMB adds additional layers of review on Corps
    projects to which no other Federal project agency is subjected.
    While there are a number of outstanding Corps projects
    underway, I am confident that Secretary James and General
    Semonite will ensure the Corps' work is completed.
        That said, it is my understanding that OMB, which is under
    the Office of the President, is the real culprit behind the
    Corps documents, reports, and projects that remain
    significantly delayed. Meanwhile, these needless delays are
    happening at a time when our country faces a tremendous backlog
    of Corps projects and water infrastructure maintenance needs.
        Millions of Americans across the country rely on Army Corps
    projects to safely navigate waters, to stay safe from flooding
    and storm damage, and reap the benefits of healthy aquatic
    ecosystems and marshlands. At the end of the day, we need
    greater investment in Corps projects, not less. We also need
    for OMB to be an effective and cooperative partner, and if that
    is a role that OMB is unwilling, or unable, to play, perhaps
    they should consider just stepping aside.
        Needless to say, I am disappointed that we do not have a
    witness here today from OMB.
        Let me close by noting that the 2018 WRDA legislation
    included a number of drinking water and wastewater provisions,
    the most significant of which was the first reauthorization of
    the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund in 22 years.
    Issues surrounding clean drinking water continue to be one of
    the top priorities for me and I know for many of our colleagues
    on this Committee and in this Congress.
        The fact is, we need to ensure that every American has
    clean, safe, and reliable water to drink. So, as we get to work
    on our 2020 WRDA bill, I think it is critically important that
    we keep that clear goal in mind.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks again for pulling this together. I
    look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and to working
    with all of the members of this Committee in the months ahead
    to craft the next bipartisan WRDA bill for the full Senate to
    debate, amend if needed, and pass so that we can go to
    conference with our colleagues in the House of Representatives.
        We look forward to hearing from R.D. James in his different
    form; I am sorry he can't be with us today.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        In just a moment, we will hear from our witnesses. Ryan
    Fisher, who is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Civil Works of the United States Department of the
    Army; General Todd Semonite, who is the Chief of Engineers and
    Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
    Charlotte Bertrand, who is here as the Deputy Assistant
    Administrator for Policy at the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        Welcome to all of you.
        I want to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be made a part of our official hearing record
    today. Please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes, so that
    we may have time for questions.
        With that, I look forward to hearing your testimony,
    beginning with Mr. Fisher.

    STATEMENT OF RYAN FISHER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
    OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, AND ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
                        THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

        Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper,
    and distinguished members of the Committee. I am honored to
    testify before you here today.
        I am here no behalf of my boss, Mr. R.D. James. He is the
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and I am here,
    of course, as an appointee myself, on behalf of the
    Administration.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. I look forward to
    continuing to work with this Committee and the Congress on
    water resource issues that are of interest to the Nation.
        The Army Civil Works Program, which is the Nation's largest
    water resources program, has three main missions: commercial
    navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
    ecosystem restoration. Some of the projects that the Corps owns
    and operates also have ancillary purposes, such as hydropower,
    recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife.
        We constructed these projects under congressional
    authorizations, such as those provided through Water Resources
    Development Acts. The Army Corps, with oversight by the
    Assistant Secretary of the Army, uses its engineering expertise
    and its relationships with other Federal agencies, State
    agencies, our project sponsors, and other stakeholders to
    develop innovative approaches to address some of the most
    pressing and complex water resources challenges facing the
    Nation.
        Such challenges include addressing the Nation's dredging
    capacity to ensure our harbors stay open and navigation lanes
    clear, the protection of communities from devastating flood
    impacts, and the restoration of significant ecosystems. It is
    critical that we work with non-Federal partners and other
    Federal agencies to develop tangible solutions and get it
    right.
        The Assistant Secretary of the Army certainly recognizes
    the importance of deliberative and responsive stakeholder
    engagement as highlighted by a recent decision to further
    consider policy implications posed by the draft water supply
    rule.
        The ASA Civil Works focus includes identifying the highest
    priority investments for the Army Civil Works Program, and
    ensuring that we deliver studies and projects in a more timely
    and efficient way.
        We recognize the importance of delivering authorized water
    resource projects to the communities of our great Nation, and
    with the help of Lieutenant General Semonite and his team, the
    Army Corps is committed to improving the execution of the Civil
    Works program.
        Over the last 2 and half years, the Army Corps has worked
    to improve its policies and streamline its delivery of
    infrastructure. We are speeding up how we do business to
    deliver projects sooner. We are not only accelerating project
    delivery, we are also improving permitting processes and
    reforming regulations to enable projects to be built faster,
    more cost effectively, and certainly more efficiently as well.
        We are right sizing decisionmaking; we are moving decisions
    from Washington to the level appropriate, to where the work is
    being done and by simplifying unnecessarily complicated and
    bureaucratic processes. We are completing targeted updates of
    policies to better deliver infrastructure projects and
    streamline permitting.
        The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is
    committed to ensuring that the Army Corps continues to identify
    the best ways to manage, develop, restore, and protect water
    resources in collaboration with our project sponsors and other
    partners. Our goal is to achieve a high economic,
    environmental, and public safety return for the Nation, which
    will benefit all Americans.
        Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to
    your questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. R.D. James, General
    Semonite, and Ms. Bertrand follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher.
        General Semonite.

       STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD SEMONITE, COMMANDING
      GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        General Semonite. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
    and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        This is my fourth consecutive testimony before this
    Committee, and I sincerely appreciate your unwavering support
    over my tenure as Chief. Together, we have all accomplished a
    great deal.
        Secretary James and I are continuing to work together to
    address water resource challenges across the Nation. I look
    forward to speaking with you today about America's Water
    Infrastructure Act of 2018, and the Corps' aggressive execution
    of this civil works program.
        The Army Corps of Engineers is committed to a performance
    based civil works program based on innovative, resilient, and
    sustainable risk informed solutions. Since Congress first
    authorized our navigation mission in 1824, the Corps has worked
    hard to develop and implement solutions to our Nation's water
    resource challenges. We are able to do this because we have a
    world class work force of talented and dedicated professionals
    who are absolutely passionate about what we do.
        However, none of our work is done alone. We appreciate and
    value the support of the Administration, the Congress, and all
    of our partners to succeed in our mission. I am very proud of
    the work we do, however, we can and must revolutionize the
    Corps of Engineers.
        I have been in command of the Corps for over 3 years. I
    travel 3 days every single year, and I have done that for the
    last 3 and a half years. We have to continue to challenge the
    enterprise to revolutionize how we are doing business.
        This does not imply that the Corps is not a world class
    organization; rather, it demands that we anticipate and respond
    to the changing requirements and externalities like all world
    class organizations. We embrace the authorities provided by
    this Committee to focus current mission areas and to serve as a
    guide to implement the Civil Works program with a strategic
    vision, taking pioneering steps to remain relevant and ready
    for the challenges of tomorrow.
        Successful civil works project delivery supports the
    Nation's current and future infrastructure priorities. The
    Corps' credibility is measured on our ability to deliver
    results that are on time, on budget, and of exceptional
    quality. The Corps is taking bold actions to improve
    performance to continue to engineer solutions for the Nation's
    toughest challenges. These actions are realized through
    modernizing the traditional delivery of the annual civil works
    program with innovative tools, streamlining internal processes,
    and exploring alternative financing approaches.
        I want to walk you through the three big initiatives we are
    doing to revolutionize the Corps. The first objective is to
    accelerate project delivery. It focuses on innovative ways to
    deliver high quality outcomes as the Corps' top priority.
    Through looking internally at our organization, we are
    identifying policy and administrative changes that can increase
    the efficiency and the effectiveness of infrastructure
    delivery.
        We believe that risk informed or professional judgment
    decisionmaking should be implemented and documented without
    being studied into numerous time consuming reviews. We also
    seek to incorporate innovative ideas through the life of a
    project as part of the acquisition strategy, design, and
    construction process.
        One new example we are investigating is a multi-port
    dredging concept that would explore innovative ways of
    executing dredging in a logical sequence manner unconstrained
    by more traditional project specific or account specific
    execution. We believe that cost and time savings can be
    achieved through a regional multi-purpose approach implemented
    over a multi-year timeframe.
        Our second big initiative is alternative financing. Fiscal
    responsibility and budgetary constraints demand that we utilize
    innovative approaches that allow for accelerated project
    execution and early realization of benefits with increased
    efficiency and effectiveness by exploring the development of a
    Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA, loan
    program, as well as seeking public-private partnership
    opportunities. We are also revising metrics and developing
    multi-year capital budget concepts in our budgeting process.
        Finally, our third objective is to improve our permitting
    process. We have adopted the One Federal Decision in
    coordinating our processes to comply with NEPA and other
    environmental laws. Our goal is to simplify the process for
    gaining infrastructure permits while protecting the environment
    in accordance with the law.
        In the regulatory program, we continue to streamline permit
    processes. Where modifications to existing Corps structures are
    concerned, these are 408 permits; we have reduced those as much
    as 50 percent.
        This includes efforts to reduce redundancy, identifying
    alternative processes, and delegating authority for
    decisionmaking to the most practical and appropriate level.
        I would love you to ask me about my flat line budget
    compared to my expanding permitting requirement. Although our
    budget workload has remained relatively steady in the last 7
    years, with more than 80,000 permits a year, the bottom line is
    our budget has decreased in real time inflation with more than
    $25 million.
        So our workload is flat lined, but our budget is going
    down, and my guys can't work permits any faster without having
    additional people to be able to process those in accordance
    with America's expectations.
        Finally, for more than 244 years, the Corps has adapted to
    meet the challenges of the today. Today is no exception. Our
    current efforts to revolutionize the Corps simply represent the
    next chapter in this remarkable journey.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. This
    concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any
    questions you have.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    General Semonite.
        Now, Ms. Bertrand.

    STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE BERTRAND, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
      FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                 AGENCY

        Ms. Bertrand. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
    Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I am Charlotte
    Bertrand, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy within
    EPA's Office of Water.
        The written testimony provided to you represents joint
    testimony from the Army Corps of Engineers and the
    Environmental Protection Agency regarding the Water Resources
    Development Act. The WRDA provisions EPA administers seek to
    ensure the American public has access to safe, clean, and
    reliable sources of water.
        I understand the members have questions regarding the
    implementation of EPA programs authorized by WRDA, and that I
    was invited here today to answer those questions. I am more
    than happy to answer those, and I thank you for the
    opportunity.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you to all of you for being
    here.
        Let me start with General Semonite.
        The perception persists that Corps projects are taking too
    long to complete. What, if any, legislative steps can we take
    to help you get these projects done faster? And will you commit
    to working with members of this Committee to find ways to build
    projects more quickly, more efficiently, at less expense to the
    taxpayers, while still protecting the environment?
        General Semonite. Chairman, we are absolutely committed to
    trying to speed up timelines.
        You all need to know that the one thing that is absolutely
    non-negotiable in the Corps of Engineers is quality. We have to
    be able to perform.
        You do a great job at giving us those funds. It is our
    absolute commitment to be able to make sure those funds are
    expended the right way.
        But our timelines are too long. So we are looking at a lot
    of different things. A lot of this is, How can we speed to be
    able to get the projects designed? We are doing a lot of
    innovative things there.
        Acquisition processes, we can't be a Corps of Engineers
    that are stuck in 244 years of doing old contracting. So we
    have done a lot of work at bringing new people in, new
    innovative concepts to be able to turn contractors faster.
        I personally think we were taking probably too risk adverse
    an opinion. We will always follow the FAR. We will always do
    the right things. But there are times that we might have put
    too many decimal points on the equation, and we are trying to
    figure out how to streamline.
        So anything that we can do. And right now, General Spellman
    sitting here behind me has over 130 initiatives to be able to
    speed up process. About 20 of those are legislative things that
    we need some help in untying the hands of the Corps to be able
    to do our work better.
        Senator Barrasso. We would appreciate working with you on
    those 20 things that are legislative, that we could actually,
    hopefully, get into this next water infrastructure bill.
        General Semonite. Yes, sir.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, in our hearing last month, Pat O'Toole, who is
    the president of the Family Farm Alliance, testified about
    additional water storage projects that could provide beneficial
    flood risk management and environmental benefits, while also
    ensuring a more reliable water supply for western communities.
    He stated in his written testimony, he said, ``Adequate water
    supplies for the future require supply enhancement measures.''
    New and expanded water storage projects, that provide long term
    solutions across the West.
        So will you work with this Committee to develop some of
    these smaller scale water storage projects that will certainly
    help our rural communities in the West?
        Mr. Fisher. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Demand on water
    certainly is not decreasing, right? I think we all know that in
    this Committee room. Demand in the West is certainly a priority
    of my boss and the Administration.
        We will work with this Committee. I am sure we have
    existing authorities we can use to tackle some of these
    problems. But if other authorities are needed, we are certainly
    willing to talk those through with this Committee, so that we
    can ensure a reliable water supply in western States, and all
    States, for that matter. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Ms. Bertrand, in Section 5004 of the
    Water Infrastructure Act, we created a grant program for
    qualified non-profits to provide technical assistance to small
    and medium sized wastewater treatment works. This type of
    technical assistance is crucial in rural communities across the
    Nation.
        Could you discuss, if you could, the difficulties that
    these small and rural wastewater treatment systems face in just
    trying to comply with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
    Water Act? Also, where are you in the implementation of this
    important project?
        Ms. Bertrand. Thank you for the question. Small systems
    have a greater challenge than some of the larger systems in
    infrastructure development, complying with the Clean Water Act,
    complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act. They have a smaller
    rate base.
        So when you look at something like the drinking water
    systems, out of our 50,000 community water systems, 91 percent
    of them serve fewer than 10,000 people. So their rate base is
    smaller, and they need more assistance.
        The tools that we have been provided through WRDA 2014,
    2016, 2018, have improved our ability to help these smaller
    communities.
        The specific provision that you referred to, Section 5004,
    of AWIA, that is one of the provisions that we have not been
    able to implement. We had more than 30 different provisions
    that amended portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act with AWIA.
    But we did not receive appropriations for all of them. So there
    were some that we required some appropriations to move forward
    on.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, our thanks to each of you for joining us, for your
    testimony, and now your willingness to respond to some of our
    questions.
        My first question would be to Deputy Assistant Secretary
    Fisher and General Semonite. It involves oversight letters on
    climate change.
        I am one of those people who focuses on root causes of
    problems, not on just the symptoms of problems, but on root
    causes. We spend a lot of time and energy focused on symptoms;
    we don't do nearly enough to focus on the root causes in too
    many instances, right? So that is a preface to what I am about
    to ask.
        In April of this year, the Environment and Public Works
    Committee held a field hearing in Iowa regarding the Corps'
    management of the catastrophic flooding along the Missouri
    River that occurred in March 2019. The Chairman has already
    referred to that. Following that hearing, I sent a letter to
    General Spellman, he may recall, with some questions for the
    record regarding climate change. I only received responses this
    past Monday.
        Again, we sent questions for the record regarding climate
    change, I think following the hearing in March. And we just
    received answers on Monday. I am going to be submitting those
    questions, and I am told the responses to the questions were
    really non-responsive.
        General Semonite, I am going to be submitting these
    questions to you again, as questions for the record. I would
    just ask that you actually respond to the questions we are
    asking this time, not dance around the issue of climate change.
    Just be responsive, please.
        I also sent both of you a letter--this will be to Secretary
    James, and to you, General Semonite--in April 2019, with 14 of
    our colleagues. That letter asked you to address how the Corps
    is planning for and combating extreme weather events attributed
    to climate change.
        It has been nearly 6 months since we sent that letter, and
    despite repeated follow up by members of our staff, we still
    have not yet received a response. We need a response, please.
        And I would just ask, when might my colleagues and I expect
    a response? It has been 6 months.
        General Semonite. To all of the Senators on the Committee,
    we are absolutely committed to being able to support those
    answers in a rapid timeline. My suspense is 17 days to get them
    to my higher levels. We meet that suspense.
        As the Chairman asked questions coming in about How can we
    continue to streamline the bureaucracy, I would defer to Mr.
    Fisher and others, but we will always make our timelines to get
    them in.
        We can talk reports as well. We are committed to get
    reports in on time. But we have to find a better way of getting
    our answers to you, sir.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
        When I was a member of the House of Representatives and
    Governor after that, we would measure the number of letters we
    would receive by maybe the hundreds. We received letters and e-
    mails by the thousands every month. We have to try to be
    responsive to our constituents and others who contact us. I
    know you want to as well. Please do.
        Second question, if I could, would be for Charlotte
    Bertrand. It is regarding PFOS and PFOA.
        Ms. Bertrand, during Administrator Wheeler's confirmation
    process, members of this Committee were alarmed to learn that
    EPA was not planning to set an enforceable drinking water
    standard for PFOA and for PFOS. Our concerns were alleviated
    somewhat when EPA had the Office of Water, David Ross sent a
    letter to us, and I am going to quote. He says, ``The EPA
    intends,'' his words, ``The EPA intends.'' Intends what? Well,
    ``to set an enforceable drinking water standard for those two
    PFAS chemicals.''
        That was February. And just last month, Mr. Ross seemed to
    back off of his commitment when he told the House
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that he would not
    commit to setting a drinking water standard for those two PFAS
    chemicals after all.
        So Mr. Chairman, I would just ask unanimous consent to
    submit both Mr. Ross's February letter and two articles
    regarding his September testimony, if I could, for the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Carper. And Ms. Bertrand, my colleagues and I don't
    ask a whole lot of yes or no questions. I am going to ask one
    of you this morning. Does EPA intend to set an enforceable
    drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA as Mr. Ross
    previously committed?
        Ms. Bertrand. So the Safe Drinking Water Act has a set of
    provisions in it that requires us to go through a process. It
    is a legally binding process. We are committed to going through
    that process. We are, right now, anticipating that we are going
    to base our regulatory determination by the end of this year.
        So that is the first step in developing the NCL that you
    are referring to.
        Senator Carper. All right. I am going to ask the same
    question, not right now, I guess, again for the record. I am
    looking for a clear yes or no answer. So just be looking for
    that question for the record, and please respond to it, yes or
    no.
        I think that is my time for right now. I will look forward
    to the next round.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two
    questions, both of them for General Semonite, and both of them
    kind of on two unrelated subjects that he is very familiar
    with.
        The first one is, I have to explain to people sometimes
    that we are navigable in Oklahoma. They talk about, oh, they
    don't realize that we have can remember taking World War II
    submarine all the way up from Orange, Texas, to Muskogee,
    Oklahoma. That still didn't register to most people what our
    capacity is there.
        But we have a 9-foot channel that we have had for a long
    period of time. I am particularly interested in this, because
    my father-in-law had a lot to do with then Governor Kerr. I
    used to consider it, it may be a boondoggle, but it was our
    boondoggle, and it worked.
        But anyway, we have the 9-foot channel. But if we were--as
    you know, we have been trying for a long period of time to get
    that into a 12-foot channel.
        Now, we are at 90 percent, all the way from the Gulf to
    Oklahoma. Ninety percent, a 12-foot channel. But it is that
    other 10 percent that is the problem. I think to do that, you
    could increase the capacity by about 50 percent, just to get
    that other 10 percent of the whole waterway done.
        So I would like to see if you had anything you could say
    briefly, because I want to have time for my second question,
    and if not, do it for the record. What can we do in Congress,
    what can we do in concert with the State government and all the
    other forces who are trying to line up on this, to accomplish
    this 12-foot channel?
        General Semonite. Senator, we think very highly of that
    particular channel. We would strongly endorse it. As you know,
    it was not in the 2020 budget, so it did not get any funding.
        It needs two things. It needs, obviously, some funds, but
    it also needs a new start. The biggest thing the Committee
    gives us is when we get the additional money above the
    President's budget, you give us work plan money. We have more
    flexibility in work plan money than we actually do in the
    President's budget.
        So this, I think, would continue to compete well, but we
    would have to get both the funds and a new start to be able to
    see that through. But you are right, this is a great
    capability.
        Senator Inhofe. I think together, we can do that.
        General Semonite. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. Now, let me say something about General
    Semonite that most of you don't know. This guy is a real tiger.
    When you are talking about some of your employees, some of your
    staff, and what your expectations are, they should see you in
    action.
        We had a flood, we have a levee that is called the Sand
    Springs-Tulsa Levee, it was built back in the 1940s. We had a
    really big time flood just last year. I mean, it was
    devastating. I remember going up into our dams and seeing it
    come within 2 feet of my feet down there. And the levee was
    starting to break, but it did hold up.
        Now, this guy, General Semonite, I walked in, and I saw him
    stacking sandbags on the levee. And I thought, this guy
    literally has his finger in the dike on this thing.
        So I just want to tell you what a great job you did there.
        But we also want to do something about that feasibility
    study. You have heard me talk about this for a long time.
    Originally it was going to be 3 years; we had it knocked down
    to 2 years.
        Now, my feeling is, I know that you probably are scheduled
    to leave around April. I would like to have a big celebration
    with you and sign that report prior to that time that you
    leave.
        Now, the question I would have is, If the chief's report
    for it was completed this year, you could include it in your
    budget for fiscal 2021. That is correct, isn't it?
        General Semonite. It is, Senator, and I owe all of you, I
    think right now on my list of chief's reports, I have about 25
    more that I am planning on signing before I leave. And that is
    one of them.
        So we are pushing hard, I told my guys, don't give me 500
    pages if 200 is good enough.
        Senator Inhofe. Where does that rank with the other 24?
        [Laughter.]
        General Semonite. They are all very, very important, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you for your great work.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member.
        Ms. Bertrand, I was very disheartened when during a House
    committee last month, David Ross, the Assistant Administrator
    for the Office of Water at the EPA, was unable or unwilling to
    commit that the EPA would make a determination to regulate PFAS
    chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water Act by setting a
    maximum contaminant level.
        You may be aware that under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
    there are three criteria that the EPA must consider when
    deciding to move forward with setting a drinking water
    regulation.
        The first criteria is that a contaminant may have adverse
    health effects. The EPA's own website titled Basic Information
    on PFAS states that ``There is evidence that exposure to PFAS
    can lead to adverse human health effects.'' So I think we can
    check the box on that one.
        The second criteria is that the contaminant is known to
    occur or there is substantial likelihood the contaminant will
    occur in public water systems with frequency and levels of
    public health concern. The Environmental Working Group has
    compiled a publicly available map of known PFAS detections in
    49 States, many of which are at levels well above the EPA's
    health advisory level. I think we can check that box, too.
        The third criteria is that in the sole judgment of the
    Administrator, the regulation of the contaminant presents a
    meaningful opportunity for reducing health risks. My question
    for you is this: Why is it taking you so long?
        Ms. Bertrand. So, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires us
    to go through a process. And we are actually getting very close
    to proposing one of the first steps in that process, and that
    is the regulatory determination, where we will be speaking to
    the three items that you just referred to in the Safe Drinking
    Water Act.
        We can't prejudge the outcome of a regulatory process. That
    would make our decision indefensible. So to make those
    defensible, we have to work through each one of those steps and
    follow the law. So that is what we are doing right now.
        Senator Gillibrand. But why is it taking so long? There is
    so much publicly available information already that supports
    conclusions on those three elements.
        Ms. Bertrand. We want to make sure that we get it right.
    And so we are carefully looking at all the information, and we
    have made a commitment in our action plan to do this first step
    by the end of the year.
        Senator Gillibrand. But your first step is just to decide
    whether or not you are going to regulate. That does not sound
    like a hard decision to make.
        Ms. Bertrand. It requires us to carefully look at the
    record; it requires us to look at the data and start to build a
    defense, a defensible record. So we are on track.
        Senator Gillibrand. What are you on track to do?
        Ms. Bertrand. By the end of the year, to have our proposed
    regulatory determination.
        Senator Gillibrand. OK. The EPA's regulatory agenda
    indicates that regulatory determination will be posted by
    December 2019. Has a draft regulatory determination been sent
    to OMB yet?
        Ms. Bertrand. It has not been sent yet. Our team is working
    very hard on getting the final document ready to submit.
        Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Fisher, as you may be aware,
    communities along the shoreline of Lake Ontario have suffered
    back to back severe flooding, due to high water levels in the
    lake. I worked with my colleagues to push for a Great Lakes
    coastal resiliency study to develop a proactive plan for
    protecting communities along the Great Lakes, including Lake
    Ontario, from coastal storms and flooding.
        This is something that is desperately needed in so many
    communities that I represent. The Army Corps Buffalo District
    is ready to go, but the study needs to be funded.
        Will you commit to working with me and the other Great
    Lakes Senators to make this study a priority for the Army
    Corps?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, we will. Lake Ontario, the Great Lakes in
    general, remain an invaluable resource to this country. The
    Army Corps recognizes that, and we certainly want to work with
    you to reduce flooding and improve those ecosystems there.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, the Army Corps has an authorized project to
    restore the ecosystem of the heavily polluted Cano Martin Pena
    in San Juan, Puerto Rico. I visited the community and had the
    opportunity to see firsthand the truly devastating
    environmental impacts that the polluted water has on a very low
    income neighborhood. That was even before Hurricane Maria made
    everything so much worse.
        We have to get this project done. We have requested that
    this project be included in the President's budget or as a new
    start on the Army Corps' annual work plan. But we seem to have
    gotten nowhere.
        From the Administration's perspective, what is currently
    blocking this project from moving forward?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't think there is necessarily anything
    blocking it. I think preliminary preconstruction engineering
    design is scheduled to be complete, I think, later this year if
    not early next.
        The Assistant Secretary of the Army, my boss, has actually
    been to visit that project, has been to meet with sponsors down
    there, and we are certainly willing to look for solutions.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Can you please brief my
    office on progress and timing as it becomes available?
        Mr. Fisher. Absolutely.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Thank you all.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Braun.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member.
        My question would be for Mr. Fisher and Ms. Bertrand.
        Aquatic ecosystems and the restoration and protection of
    them; I know as a landowner that manages many acres of farm and
    timber ground, farming seems to keep at bay a lot of the
    invasives that are out there, because you manage that ground
    every year. You have a clear field, so you can get a good crop.
        It has been amazing to me in what a short period of time
    that--and I will get to water in a moment--forests have been
    infiltrated by so many invasives. Literally a beetle coming
    over on a pallet from China has eliminated ash trees, which
    constitute 8 percent of all hardwood trees. And it has happened
    over 15 years.
        So in some cases, it moves so quickly, you can't even get a
    handle on it. When I look at things like Japanese stilt grass,
    which looks like a normal, native grass, grows in the woods,
    and it completely smothers out regeneration.
        When it comes to waterways, it shares that same
    characteristic with forest ground. You generally can't see all
    the invasives at work. It is hidden. Of course, I know Asian
    carp are in our Indiana waterways. They can jump out of the
    water and hit you in the head.
        So I would like both of you to comment on aquatic
    ecosystems and give me your opinion of what our worst nightmare
    is out there in terms of trying to rein them in, and what the
    progress has been on things like Asian carp, zebra mussels, and
    many of the other things I am probably not even aware of.
        Mr. Fisher, would you start, please?
        Mr. Fisher. Sure. The Corps has multiple missions, aquatic
    ecosystem I would classify is one of the top three right now,
    navigation, flood control, aquatic ecosystem restoration.
        Asian carp in particular has been certainly a nuisance
    problem. The Corps has things like a fish barrier to keep those
    from moving into the Great Lakes, but they are certainly
    monitoring the Ohio River and others there around Indiana. It
    is going to be a lot of monitoring, a lot of preparation to
    make sure we have the proper infrastructure in place to contain
    fish and other invasive species where they--and remove them
    from areas that we don't want them, and contain them.
        Senator Braun. What else other than Asian carp would be on
    your radar?
        Mr. Fisher. Any submerged aquatic vegetation, things like
    this, all around the country. We have harmful algal blooms,
    things like this, pop up in lakes all over the country. And we
    want to make sure that we have the authorities to address
    those.
        Where we don't have the authorities, we certainly want to
    work with this Committee to figure out what might be needed, so
    we can be of assistance in those matters.
        Senator Braun. Ms. Bertrand.
        Ms. Bertrand. Thank you. We also recognize that this is a
    challenging area, and we do have a lot of different activities
    going on related to invasive species, and related to harmful
    algal blooms. I would ask that if I could please give you more
    information for the record, that we can probably give you a
    little bit more detail.
        Senator Braun. Especially on Asian carp, if you could both
    get back with my office, I would like to know whether it is
    being pushed back, whether they are progressing, and a progress
    report. Then maybe each office, give me a report on the next
    two most challenging aquatic invasives, and some idea on
    whether we are making progress or not.
        One other question; I have a little time left. This would
    be for General Semonite.
        I know in my own area of southern Indiana, we have one of
    your projects done back in the 1970s, Patoka Lake, which has
    been a godsend for rural water. Also, seemingly in concert with
    the Corps when it comes to waters of the U.S., and the issue
    that besets farmers, and I know that is something we are
    grappling with in other areas here.
        Where does the Corps weigh in when it comes to issues that
    would be tied in or related to waters of the U.S. where many
    farmers are now confused in terms of what they can and can't do
    in their own ditch management?
        General Semonite. Sir, I will just hit it quickly, and then
    Mr. Fisher or EPA can weigh in. As you know, there was a
    decision put in the Public Register yesterday, on the 22nd of
    October, on repeal of that. It has 60 days, and then that will
    be implemented.
        As far as us, we give technical advice. But when it comes
    to the policy of that, I will defer to Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Fisher. I would just add that the Army Civil Works
    Office is focused on implementation. The Corps of Engineers is
    tasked with implementing the Clean Water 404 program. We want
    to make sure it is being implemented consistently across the
    country.
        We recognize there are a variety of challenges between
    various geographic regions of the country. But we want to
    ensure consistent implementation going forward.
        Ms. Bertrand. I defer to my colleagues.
        Senator Braun. OK.
        Thank you so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Lieutenant General Semonite, as we spoke just before this
    meeting began, I do look forward to meeting with you in my
    office. I understand we have a get-together sometime after the
    first of November.
        I also wanted to take this opportunity to sort of thank you
    for your 40 years of service, which includes tours in Bosnia,
    Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as multiple civil works and disaster
    response assignments with the Corps. Thank you for your
    service.
        Mr. Fisher, I would also like to take this opportunity to
    thank you and your team, including Mr. James, and this thanks
    is probably a little bit overdue, for your successful efforts
    to provide the initial fiscal year 2019 funding and budget for
    an additional $3 million in fiscal year 2020 for the Missouri
    River Basin snow pack monitoring system. The capability that
    this provides will enable more precise forecasting and better
    decisionmaking by the Corps' Missouri River water management
    team.
        I do look forward to receiving an implementation plan brief
    from Major General Spellman in just the next few weeks.
        At times I have been tough on the Corps, but I want to
    publicly thank both of you and the 35,000 employees for the
    good job the Corps has done in really managing a very difficult
    year on the Missouri River, in the aftermath of floods this
    past year. It is not done yet, but clearly, the Corps has taken
    a lead role in trying to make improvements and in trying to
    respond in a timely fashion to some real heavy precipitation,
    probably record breaking precipitation in the Missouri River
    Basin.
        My question is, first of all to both of you gentlemen. The
    Corps of Engineers has been grappling with a proposed so called
    Surplus Water Rule for the better part of the last decade. I
    myself don't even agree with how the Corps uses the term
    surplus water. Personally, I think it is offensive, and I think
    a lot of our citizens in the West feel the same as I do. They
    view it as an unlawful taking of what is a constitutionally
    protected right of the States to the natural flows of the river
    systems.
        The Flood Control Act of 1944 highlights the preeminent
    role of States and localities with respect to water rights.
    Surplus water appears undefined in Section 6 of the Flood
    Control Act. In the decades since the passage of the Act, with
    the exception of the previous Administration, the Corps has
    declined to define surplus water.
        Yet in December 2016, the Corps sought comment on a
    proposed Surplus Water Rule. The original deadline for this
    action was February 2017; the comment period was extended. But
    a decision, which was scheduled to be made in August, was
    deferred for 6 months.
        Mr. Fisher and General Semonite, it was never the intention
    of Congress to federalize all of the water in our country's
    major rivers. I am going to ask you, where are we now with this
    proposed rulemaking action, and how will you balance
    responsibilities of the Corps as authorized by Congress with
    the rights and interests of the States?
        Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Fisher. We certainly don't want to federalize waters,
    as you hinted at just then. Where we are with it right now, we
    are in the federalism process, I am not sure--originally, we
    had done all the gathering of feedback from States and tribes
    around the country. That is where we are getting all the input
    we possibly can.
        You referred to the 6 month extension. When we get to that
    point, hopefully we will be prepared with all the info we have
    heard from States, Governors, tribes, to be able to move
    forward with a decision on that.
        General Semonite. And Senator, on the Corps side, Secretary
    James has delegated to General Spellman the approval of
    reallocation reports and surplus water contracts just in the
    last week or so. So we are right now in the middle of writing
    implementation guidance as to how we are going to do that. And
    we would like to think we can get that done in 60 days.
        There are 10 contracts that have still been out there. Our
    goal is as soon as those implementation instructions are done
    to be able to act on those 10 and get the books clear so we can
    then continue to be much more responsive on supply contracts.
        Senator Rounds. General, can you imagine if we talk about
    the natural flows, is there any possibility that the Corps
    considers the natural flows of the river to belong to anyone
    except those defined by Constitution and western water law? Is
    there any question at all about that?
        Mr. Fisher. No, there is not. Like I said, we are not
    looking for the Federal Government to take control of these
    things. We certainly recognize States' rights.
        Senator Rounds. They clearly recognize the natural flows of
    the river do not belong to the Federal Government, and they
    clearly recognize that they do belong to the States and the
    local entities?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes. There is complex--right, you can put a
    reservoir in, and it changes the natural flow. So we have to
    consider all those sorts of things. But yes, natural flow,
    correct.
        Senator Rounds. Let me just follow this for a second. If
    you have a natural flow of a river, you haven't added anything
    to it. That natural flow is still there, and that is all that
    there is there.
        How do you come up with surplus water? It is part of the
    natural flow. Even if you may have the opportunity to slow down
    its release, it is not surplus. And it clearly belongs to those
    States from day one in this country. And I have yet to figure
    out why in the world it has taken so long for the Corps to
    figure that out.
        I want you to be aware that this is one that is really
    important to the western States. We have exactly the same
    constitutional rights that were granted to the original 13
    States. And this is one that needs to be repaired and fixed and
    dealt with as soon as possible. I don't understand any reason
    why it has taken this long to get this far.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First off, I would like to say that I am very sorry to
    learn that Assistant Secretary James is not with us today. I
    want to thank Mr. Fisher for filling in. And I hope that we
    will get to see Mr. James soon. I hope he feels better soon as
    well.
        General Semonite, thank you for being here. It is good to
    see you again.
        President Trump's consistent destruction of ethical norms
    and clear disregard for our Constitution and laws was on full
    display last week when he awarded himself a no-bid contract to
    host a G7 Summit at one of his properties. Thankfully,
    bipartisan pushback from Democrats and Republicans forced the
    President to retreat from this appalling proposal within 48
    hours of its announcement.
        Unfortunately, this is only the latest bizarre and
    troubling episode of President Trump attempting to steer
    Federal contracts outside of the official process, and
    potentially outside of the law, to benefit himself, his
    friends, or his allies. In May, the Washington Post reported
    that President Trump directed officials to fast track billions
    of dollars of construction contracts, seize private land, and
    disregard environmental rules in order to construct his border
    wall ahead of the 2020 elections.
        In some cases, when staff suggested that his orders were
    unlawful or unworkable, the President reportedly dangled
    pardons for anyone willing to break the law on his behalf. As
    far as I can tell, the White House still hasn't denied these
    reports. They merely tried to claim that the President was
    actually joking, or quickly changed the subject.
        General Semonite, given my deep respect for you and the
    Corps of Engineers, it pains me to ask you these questions. But
    given several press reports outlining the President's efforts
    to influence Army Corps contracting decisions, I would like to
    clarify your views on proper Federal procurement rules.
        As a general rule, do you believe full and open
    competition, free of political influence, is critical to
    protecting taxpayers and the Government, while making sure that
    the best solution is advanced?
        General Semonite. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Have you ever personally
    involved yourself in an Army Corps contracting decision to
    overrule the source selection authority and steer a contract
    award to a company you personally favor?
        General Semonite. I do not get involved in contract
    actions. I have an unbelievably world class team, and I make
    sure that I stay out of that. We do everything exactly in
    accordance with the FAR. And as this Committee knows, for 10
    years, we have had clean audits on every single thing we do.
        Senator Duckworth. I would expect no less.
        If you or your staff are ever pressured by the President or
    anyone speaking on behalf of the President to violate a law, a
    regulation, rule, or constitutional protection, will you
    immediately notify this Committee?
        General Semonite. Ma'am, we are apolitical. I tell my guys,
    what we do, we get our taskings from a higher authority, we are
    concrete and steel. We start at one place; we end at the other
    place. I stay out of why and how. We mainly worry about what we
    are building and to get it done in accordance with the law.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, General. That is very
    reassuring.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to include three
    press reports about these issues.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, as ASA James and I have discussed in the past--
    and I do want to thank him for being so very approachable and
    accessible--efficient navigation on our inland system is key to
    our global economic competitiveness. I am sure you agree.
        Every time a lock faces an unscheduled closure, freight
    traffic shifts to roadways and rail, costs rise for shippers,
    and already razor thin margins for farmers and manufacturers
    are further eroded. Despite the critical nature of our inland
    system, it always seems to take a backseat to other
    infrastructure efforts.
        Highway projects, for example, generally enjoy an 80-20
    cost share between Federal and non-Federal sponsors. Airport
    construction projects receive 75-25 cost share, as do harbor
    construction projects. Yet lock and dam projects still rely on
    an outdated 50-50 cost share, which exacerbates the $8 billion
    construction backlog.
        Mr. Fisher, if this Committee is able to secure an increase
    in the Federal cost share for inland projects, does the Corps
    have enough projects in the pipeline to accommodate the cost
    share change?
        Mr. Fisher. We do. I think the overall backlog, beyond
    inland waters, is about $100 billion. I don't know what the
    exact number on inland water is, but it is significant.
        That trust fund you referred to is typically depleted each
    appropriation cycle, so yes, there would be projects to get at
    if this Committee and this Senate and Congress were to adjust
    the cost share.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        General, would you agree with Mr. Fisher?
        General Semonite. I do. However, if you don't increase the
    top line, and then you fence 75 percent of the current budget,
    you are basically reducing our operating capital by about 25
    percent. So therefore, that means things are not going to get
    done.
        So if we change that cost share, I would want to make sure
    that we identify to the Committee what is the risk you are
    incurring if the regular top line is the same.
        Senator Duckworth. I think that is a great note of caution,
    and we will take it into consideration as we work on the
    change. Thank you.
        I want to thank you for Secretary James' August 16th letter
    that reinforced his commitment to completing a review of the
    Corps' Urban Flooding Policies as required by language in WRDA.
    His letter states that he hopes to have the report completed by
    the end of the year. Is that still the plan?
        Mr. Fisher. I am sorry, the report due at the end of the
    year?
        Senator Duckworth. Yes.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, that report, any reports, I realize we can
    be quicker on these things, but yes, we are shooting for
    reports at the end of the year as quickly as we can, and we
    will try to expedite these for the Committee.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher, and
    General Semonite. I want to ask about the Bonnet Carre Spillway
    on the Mississippi River.
        According to NOAA, conditions from July 2018 to June 2019
    set the 12 month precipitation record in the United States, a
    historically wet year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opens
    the Bonnet Carre Spillway to ensure that no more than 1.25
    million cubic feet per second of the Mississippi River passes
    New Orleans. This is based on science, engineering, and
    forecast.
        This year's openings lasted for an unprecedented 123 days.
    It just devastated the Mississippi Sound. Because what happens
    is, the Bonnet Carre Spillway empties out into Lake
    Pontchartrain, which eventually gets into the Mississippi Sound
    with a bunch of freshwater and destroys our saltwater shrimp
    and oysters.
        I have submitted a WRDA request for language that would
    authorize a comprehensive study of water management techniques,
    structures, and features within the RNT, and to look at this.
    We certainly want to do what we can on Mississippi River
    flooding. But I just don't think it has to be done at the
    expense of our small businesspeople and residents who depend on
    the saltwater in the Mississippi Sound.
        General, if you could comment on that, and then Mr. Fisher.
        General Semonite. Senator, you know this is where we have
    eight authorized purposes. Sometimes those compete against each
    other. As much as we care about the environment, the habitat,
    the economy, there is absolutely no doubt in our mind the most
    important thing is life safety. There was some confusion in the
    Missouri River when our guys would say, We have eight
    authorized purposes, but it is always to be able to take care
    of people and their property first.
        So the challenge here is that if you didn't release that
    much water, could we have found some way of absorbing those
    impacts if you didn't have that water going downstream? We
    would welcome a study. Anything we can do to try to do this
    better, we want to do.
        But the last thing we want to do is hold water back and
    kill a human when we are trying to preserve the environment.
    The environment is important. But it is that balance that is
    hard to be able to manage.
        Senator Wicker. Well, I am glad you welcome the study. It
    is not just the environment, although the environment is very
    important. It is the livelihood of the people who depend on the
    saltwater in the Mississippi Sound.
        Mr. Fisher, do you have anything to add?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, I am not sure I do. I think life,
    property, environment, economy, those local businesses, are
    certainly important. When you have competing water resource
    issues in Bonnet Carre or other spillways, there are tough
    decisions.
        We look forward to working with this Committee to ensure
    that we are operating those spillways in an appropriate manner
    and protecting everything that they are authorized for.
        Senator Wicker. I am glad that the General would welcome
    the study.
        I have also, with regard to permitting and economic
    development, I have submitted, Mr. Chairman, a provision to
    WRDA to our communities to work on the front end with the Army
    Corps to review sites in advance in order to recruit projects
    to locations that require wetland mitigation. I have found that
    certain districts interpret the current law differently across
    the Nation.
        Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge
    of dredged fill material into waters, including wetlands. We
    want to mitigate, but we would like an opportunity to do this
    in the most efficient way, so that when a community has an
    opportunity to act quickly to engage in job creation, they can
    do so.
        Would you agree that local communities should be able to
    work collaboratively with the Corps and other resource agencies
    when engaged in responsible economic development, and that
    working collaboratively on the front end could allow the Corps
    to be a stronger partner with local communities around the
    country in job creation?
        General Semonite. Senator, certainly. Anything we can do to
    reduce that overall time. There is a lot of things on the front
    end both the locals can do, but also the other resource
    agencies, the interagency fish and wildlife and other
    capabilities.
        The other thing that you talked about, consistency, we want
    to delegate and empower. We want to push things down. But that
    means you have a hard time making sure everybody does it the
    same.
        General Spellman and I had a meeting with our permitting
    people yesterday to be able to make sure that we have systems
    in place to be as consistent as possible. If we find a district
    that is not consistent, call me personally, and I will make
    sure we get that fixed.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Fisher. We have the Clean Water Act; we have an eye
    toward implementation. And Mr. James certainly, and the
    Administration, certainly want districts to be reviewing the
    same science, using the same documents and making decisions
    consistent across the Nation.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper [presiding]. Senator Capito, the Chairman's
    list has you next, followed by Senator Ernst.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        I want to thank you all for your presentation, and
    Lieutenant General, thank you for your service, and thank you
    for the great service that the Corps provides.
        I was just out at the Robert C. Byrd Locks to watch the
    dewatering of the locks with our Colonel Evers in our
    Huntington District, who does a great job working with our
    offices. I will say this, when you peer down into the chamber,
    you realize why these projects are so expensive, because it is
    a massive undertaking to repair those locks and give them the
    lifetime that they need through the next several years. So I am
    very appreciative of that.
        I do have a bit of--the last time that everyone was here in
    March, we submitted some questions that we have yet to have
    answers responded to. I heard your first response to Senator
    Carper, but I wanted to put that one out on the table as well.
        General Semonite. [Remarks off microphone.]
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Ms. Bertrand, I am working with Senator Cardin on an issue
    that I think is important to everybody, and that is the
    leakages that we have with all the water out of all the water
    systems we have.
        We had a report in our newspaper just recently that said
    that a small community was having trouble with its water
    system, and they estimated that 60 percent of the water that is
    going out through these pipes is getting lost before it even
    gets to the customer.
        So we are looking at a way to help our small
    infrastructure, our public service districts, to be able to
    answer this question, and we are introducing Assuring Quality
    Water Infrastructure Act, where the EPA is going to be playing
    a role of--because you are now supposed to be providing, and
    you talked about this a little bit, educational materials on
    asset management.
        But how do you think small water systems are addressing the
    issue of asset management? Is your message getting received?
        Obviously, they don't have the money to repair these, or
    know how to do it or determine the leaks. How are we going to
    be able to help small water systems with this?
        Ms. Bertrand. Thank you for the question. We share your
    interest in this asset management. It is just a critical part
    of planning for infrastructure upgrades, understanding when you
    may need funding, how to obtain the funding.
        In AWIA, we have been through, what AWIA authorized us to
    do, we have been providing more information on asset
    management. And we are requiring States to start to incorporate
    that into some of their planning.
        We would be happy to work with you on proposals and provide
    technical assistance on anything that you put forward in this
    area.
        Senator Capito. There have been numerous reports from other
    States with a water shortage. If we have leakages everywhere
    else, we are really wasting water in a lot of States because of
    older systems that I think you can be of great assistance here.
        The other thing I would like to say, too, since this is a
    bipartisan issue, that I have worked with Senator Cardin on,
    and that is the PFOS and PFOA drinking water level. You said
    twice in response to two questions that you are trying to get
    your regulatory determination. I get that, but that sounds like
    such bureaucratic stuff, when we realize that over 3 years ago,
    the EPA came down hard on two of our communities, telling us
    that the level of PFOA and PFOS in our water systems was higher
    than what would be considered healthy, without much warning and
    without much assistance at the same time.
        So I just want to register to you the frustrations with the
    timelines, the kind of what I perceive to be--and I think we
    all do--is a sort of a pushback from the EPA trying to slow the
    process. I understand science, and we want to get the science
    right, and all of that.
        But the determination here has already been determined by
    EPA, that these are chemicals that we need to watch as they are
    going into our water system, for a lot of different reasons. So
    I am going to add my voice to the level of concern on this
    particular issue.
        So I am going to ask Mr. Fisher a quick question, if I can.
        We have some--in one of the bills, it is water
    infrastructure where the Corps helps with money with ARC and
    EDA to help get our water systems its environmental
    infrastructure authorities. In our region--the Appalachian
    region, specifically West Virginia--we are running up against
    our authorization level in terms of funding.
        We are having issues trying to figure out how to bump those
    levels up. We understand it has to go through--and you will
    have to tell me this--the 7001 process. I would like to enlist
    your help in trying to get us to meet the challenge of lifting
    these authorization levels as they meet the challenges of the
    very expensive replacement of the energy infrastructure, or
    infrastructure, the water infrastructure that we have in our
    States.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, certainly, if the communities you are
    working with are pursuing environmental infrastructure
    programs, and they need assistance filling out their annual
    7001 request, we certainly can step up, and the Corps and our
    office, the Army Civil Works, can help with that.
        Senator Capito. But you see what I am saying here; we had a
    certain authorization level through--I mean, I know it is
    incumbent upon us to raise those levels. We are having some
    issues with earmarks and those kinds of terminologies. So I
    would really like to work with you all to figure out how to do
    it. Because you have been really, really critical to some small
    projects in your world, but very large projects for
    communities.
        Mr. Fisher. We understand. We are certainly willing to work
    with you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you so much.
        Senator Carper. Senator Ernst, I indicated that you would
    be next, but Senator Markey has come back, so he is next, and
    you are right after him, and then Senator Cramer.
        Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Earlier
    this month, the Army Corps released a draft report of the
    Sagamore and Bourne bridges on Cape Cod. These two bridges are
    vitally important. They connect the nearly 250,000 residents of
    the Cape with the rest of Massachusetts, and the tourism
    community is obviously very important.
        Unfortunately, these two bridges are over 80 years old, and
    as the Army Corps just concluded in its draft report,
    structurally deficient and in desperate need of replacement.
        Replacing the bridges is one of the most critical
    infrastructure projects in Massachusetts. That is why I led my
    colleagues in Massachusetts to send a letter to you, General,
    last week, urging the Army Corps to include all necessary
    funding for the Cape Cod bridges in the Corps work plan for
    fiscal year 2020.
        Although we must keep working to identify long term
    solutions for these bridges, an initial allocation of money to
    get this project moving as soon as possible is important,
    including startup funds for Cape Cod in the next Army Corps
    work plan would represent a significant down payment and a
    responsible long term investment. So thank you, General, and
    thank you for all the work you do for our country as well. Much
    appreciated.
        So I would just like to take this opportunity to urge you
    again to include all necessary funding for the Cape Cod bridges
    in the Corps' 2020 budget and to ask for your response.
        General Semonite. Senator, I have been to those bridges
    three times personally. I have talked to the Governor
    personally about this. We need to look at an out of the box
    solution here.
        Before you came in, the Chairman had said right up front,
    there are times where bureaucratic rules don't allow certain
    projects of very, very important value to be able to meet into
    the budget. These are ones that can't go through a benefit-cost
    ratio. It is going to end up having a cost, and very easily
    might not be able to qualify.
        These are going to be obsolete by 2025. This is something
    of a strategic value. It is going to fall into the same
    category of the Soo Locks, where it has to have some additional
    capability.
        So I would encourage not only for this particular project,
    but for other projects that this Committee has that are so
    important to this Nation, and they are a single point of
    failure, that we have to find another way of getting some of
    these projects approved. You have our commitment in the work
    plan and just from an engineering perspective to fight to get
    these done.
        Senator Markey. So you will invest the necessary startup
    funds for this project in the plan?
        General Semonite. Unfortunately, my work plan doesn't
    necessarily keep its integrity all the way through. But you
    have my commitment, and I think it will compete very, very well
    with my guys putting our work plan together.
        Senator Markey. OK, thank you. I think that is absolutely
    imperative.
        We, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, also had to look
    at what the potential risk was up in the northeast. I am
    pleased that Massachusetts has a State specific study, but that
    study is unfortunately incomplete. In particular, the city of
    Boston has not been studied by the Army Corps despite its
    significant vulnerability to coastal flooding and sea level
    rise.
        General, do you agree that Boston faces major climate risks
    to its infrastructure, including flooding and sea level rise?
        General Semonite. It definitely does. Unfortunately, the
    rules on this particular study--it is called the North Atlantic
    Comprehensive Study--did not allow Boston to be included. So we
    want to work with your staff to figure out, How do we continue
    to be able to address the Boston challenges? But it might be
    through some other venue.
        Senator Markey. So you will commit to me to working to find
    a way to study climate resilience and infrastructure in Boston?
        General Semonite. Without a doubt.
        Senator Markey. Beautiful. That is very, very important.
        And again, I appreciate your work in the Army Corps.
        Secretary James came and visited with me the bridges on
    Cape Cod and Boston Harbor. He came out on a boat with me to
    take a look at it as well. And you, I know, are on this and
    understand it fully.
        Every American should have access to safe, healthy drinking
    water. In too many communities across the country, we are
    failing to deliver on that promise. High levels of lead,
    copper, pesticides, and other invisible contaminants are
    actively hurting children and families. We can't ignore this
    crisis or sweep it under the rug.
        That is why I have introduced the Clear Drinking Water Act.
    I urge this Committee to include my legislation in any WRDA
    package as a part of this WRDA reauthorization. We must take
    action to address drinking water issues.
        I urge all members to look at my proposal. I think it deals
    with every region's problems comprehensively. I hope that we
    can, once again, on this Committee serve as a model that we
    work together on a bipartisan basis to pragmatically solve
    problems.
        So I thank you both, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Carper.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you very much.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you.
        General Semonite, I want to thank you very, very much. I
    appreciated the time that you took this last couple of weeks
    while Congress was back in their home States to visit us in
    Cedar Rapids at their first federally funded portion of their
    flood control system. It meant a lot to have you there, working
    with you and others on your team to find a path forward for the
    citizens of Cedar Rapids. They fought very hard for that
    project, and we are very thankful for that.
        So kudos to you and your team.
        And General Spellman, you joined us earlier this year in
    April in western Iowa, in Glenwood, Mills County, for a very
    healthy discussion and field hearing on the flooding that we
    have seen throughout the western part of our State.
        I would like to talk a little bit about that with you,
    General Semonite. We have had very devastating flooding in
    western Iowa. A number of those communities are still under
    water. If you could this morning, could you provide us with an
    update on the progress that the Corps is making with repairing
    and rebuilding a number of those levees in southwest Iowa?
        General Semonite. Yes, ma'am. So as you know, this was
    probably the second wettest year in the last 124 years. We
    really have broken this repair down into three big phases. We
    had 212 levee breaches, 13 of them repaired as of today. We
    have on our second phase the ability to be able to go back and
    to be able to restore those levees. We have 182 different
    requests.
        We think we have that under control. It really goes back to
    the longer plan of how do you continue to recommend a study for
    the flood protection, to be able to make that happen. We are
    absolutely committed to be able to restore that back and to be
    able to get the level of safety back.
        If you don't mind, I just would want to go back to your
    thing on Cedar Rapids. It probably also affects Senator Cramer.
    As you know better than anybody in this room, that would never
    have seen the light of day had we continued to be able to have
    a benefit-cost ratio of 2.5 where people are either losing
    their lives or they are losing their property. We are having
    the same thing in Fargo-Moorhead.
        We as a committee and we as a Federal Government have to
    find a way of somehow getting those projects--the supplemental
    was the savior here. It was able to get your project approved.
    But the bottom line is, we still have communities that are
    affected with an arbitrary metric that we have to be able to
    figure out a way around.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, absolutely, I agree completely with
    that. The benefit to cost ratio is very detrimental to those of
    us that live in rural communities. It is not that our lives or
    property are less valuable to us than somebody living along the
    coastlines, where they may have million-dollar homes and so
    forth. But certainly, we do need to make sure that that is
    adjusted, that it will work better for everybody across the
    United States.
        Just as a follow up for the first question, what we have
    heard is that there will only be minimal levels of protection
    in place for a portion of southwest Iowa before the start of
    next year's flood season. What plans are being worked on, maybe
    in coordination with FEMA or other agencies, to make sure that
    the communities along the miles of these compromised levees
    will have adequate protection come next spring?
        General Semonite. I think we probably need to lay this out
    for you and show you exactly what the plan is. Obviously, we
    can really only do the response, that is what is under our
    control.
        But also, Congress has been very, very good in the
    supplementals. The $17.4 billion that has gone in the ground, a
    lot of this could very easily be covered in the next
    supplemental that is coming.
        So that is where you go from really that short term
    recovery into a much, much longer plan to be able to give you
    the level of resilience you need out in those communities.
        But if you want, I will have my staff come and lay that out
    for you with what is currently going in the ground, and where
    do we see future tasks that could be done, and what is the
    funding mechanism to make that happen.
        Senator Ernst. Right. That would be fantastic.
        Both, General, for you and Mr. Fisher, you are both
    familiar with the situation, I hope, that we have in Hamburg,
    Iowa. General Spellman is nodding his head.
        It is a really difficult situation. As we begin working on
    this next WRDA, do you have any recommendations or policy
    changes that could help some of these small communities like
    Hamburg improve their flood protection infrastructure, or
    potentially continue using temporary structures?
        Mr. Fisher. From a policy perspective, I think we certainly
    want to work with you, Senator, and this Committee on what
    authorizations and what things we might need to address
    problems like that. I will let the General address what is
    currently being done and what is being done here in the near
    term.
        General Semonite. I think on the tactical side, the State
    was very good. They stepped up with $6.3 million. We got the
    design all done; the city still needs $3 million. So we are at
    a little bit of challenge. Whatever we can do, we will get the
    Federal side covered.
        I don't know if we initially have a solution there. Maybe
    we can go back and redesign somehow to get it at a cheaper
    cost. But we are all in to try and figure out how we can fix
    Ditch Six Levee in Hamburg.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, yes. God bless Mayor Crain and
    all the citizens there in Hamburg. It has been a really
    challenging number of decades, we will put it like that, for
    that community. Because it is a rural, very, very small
    community, they are economically challenged when it comes to
    putting up those types of dollars as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, I really appreciate it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
        Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    your service and for being here. Right up front, General
    Semonite, I want to express my gratitude for both your
    understanding and commitment to this benefit to cost ratio
    issue that has prevented really important jobs from getting
    done. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues on
    that issue. Thank you.
        I unfortunately was presiding when you had your discussion
    with Senator Rounds on the Surplus Water Rule. So I am going to
    dig into that a little bit for you.
        As you know, last month, I sent a bipartisan letter that
    was signed by 18 of my colleagues to OMB, hoping to halt the
    proposed rulemaking regarding the use of Corps reservoir
    projects for domestic, municipal, and industrial water supply,
    otherwise known as the Water Supply Rule.
        Similar letters were sent, as you know, to the Corps from
    the Western Governors Association, Western Attorneys General,
    National Water Supply Association, Western States Water
    Council, and National Water Resources Association, all in
    opposition to the rule.
        Not only in my view was the rule crafted poorly with
    without adequate State and tribal consultation, which in my
    view is just the root of the problem, it is also based, I
    think, on a wrong premise that somehow the Corps has management
    control of the water that should remain delegated to the
    States.
        I want to publicly thank all of my colleagues who signed
    the letter. As Mark Twain famously said, or is believed to have
    said, whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting. I think
    we have started a brawl, if this is any indication.
        I would like first of all, Mr. Chairman, to put into the
    record all of these letters that I just referenced.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cramer. Mr. Fisher, as I am sure you know, I had to
    bring this issue all the way to the Secretary of the Army,
    Secretary McCarthy, when he came before me on the Armed
    Services Committee as a nominee. I have no doubt this was not
    his highest priority, and I appreciate that both his and your,
    and your agencies', responsiveness when you sent the memo
    putting the Water Supply Rule on hold for at least 6 months to
    ``better integrate input from stakeholders.'' I appreciate
    that.
        The fact that I had to take it to the Secretary himself and
    that all of these organizations had to write is concerning to
    me. But I want to make the point clear that this is part of the
    problem. For nearly 3 years, my colleagues, Governors,
    stakeholders have all made their opposition clear. Yet it
    seemed to fall on deaf ears. Whether the rule or the host of
    other issues brought up to date, it is clear the Corps is in
    need of more effective oversight.
        Mr. Fisher, I am going to reiterate my thanks for the 6
    month delay. It was definitely a win for my constituents and
    for your constituents, and moving forward, I hope it is even
    more important that we get this right, not just the process,
    but the product right in the long run.
        To both of you, General Semonite and Mr. Fisher, I have
    been very vocal in my support of policies that promote and
    protect federalism, as you know. The proposed Water Supply Rule
    would interfere with State laws and regulations governing the
    management allocation and protection of water resources. I want
    to get very specific here. In both the Flood Control Act of
    1944 and the Water Supply Act of 1958, Congress made it clear
    the Corps was to defer to State water law.
        Specifically, Section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944
    states, ``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the
    Congress to recognize the interests and rights of the States in
    determining the development of the watersheds within their
    borders, and likewise their interests and rights in water
    utilization.'' This was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
    Court.
        So with that in mind, I am going to ask just a few
    fundamental questions as time allows to General Semonite and
    Mr. Fisher.
        Do you agree with the Supreme Court that any water supply
    proposal you submit must defer to State water laws?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, we do.
        General Semonite. We agree, sir.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you. Is it your opinion the current
    one size fits all proposal that you have on hold adequately
    defers to State water law?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes.
        Senator Cramer. OK. A few weeks ago, I was able to host EPA
    Administrator Wheeler in North Dakota, where we discussed both
    the ACE and WOTUS rules, both of which respect State
    sovereignty. Now, this has been a high priority of the Trump
    administration, cooperative federalism.
        Do you believe that this proposal is in line with the
    President's stated policies of cooperative federalism as it is?
        Mr. Fisher. You asked the previous question about the one
    size fits all policy; I think I said yes. No would have been
    the appropriate answer there.
        Senator Cramer. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Fisher. One size fits all is not good for any area,
    when you have the geography and topography around the country,
    that is difficult.
        I am sorry; your follow up question was about the Water of
    the United States rulemaking?
        Senator Cramer. Just the commitment of the Trump
    administration to cooperative federalism.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes.
        Senator Cramer. Do you think that this rule as it is
    adheres to that priority of this Administration?
        Mr. Fisher. So the letters you just entered for the record
    were a big part of the reason our office did a 6 month delay.
    We want to make sure that we are properly conducting a
    federalism process on this. We want to hear from all States,
    all stakeholders involved, and make sure their input is
    considered in this. When we get to the end of a 6 month period,
    a proper decision can be made at that time.
        Senator Cramer. My time is up, so I will submit some
    further questions for the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the witnesses being here today. You guys do
    really, really important work for the country, certainly for my
    State.
        Secretary Fisher, General Semonite, one issue I just wanted
    to highlight is on the permitting process as it continues going
    forward on the Pebble Mine. I want to make sure--there is some
    talk that that has been fast tracked. I don't think that is the
    kind of project that we should be fast tracking at all.
        I also think it is critical that science, not politics,
    drives the Army Corps' and the EPA's decisionmaking. I have
    been encouraging all your agencies to not just hear directly
    from Alaskans on this here, but to get out into Alaska, get out
    to the region, Bristol Bay. Some did this summer.
        And as I am sure you saw, the EPA and the Department of
    Interior recently submitted comments to the Corps' draft EIS.
    Many of their comments were highly critical. EPA submitted
    permits, almost 200 pages. The Department of Interior asked for
    a supplemental EIS.
        We think certainly the burden is now on Pebble and the
    court to substantially address these concerns based on science
    as required by Federal law. This is a high bar, as I repeatedly
    said, we can't trade one resource for another in the region. I
    just want to make sure that you can confirm to me that it is
    science and data--not politics--that drive decisionmaking going
    forward.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator, certainly from a policy level, we
    want a science based approach. There has been no talk of fast
    tracking anything. We want the Alaska district to go through
    their normal process and do all the technical work to make
    appropriate decisions.
        I will let the General discuss current status.
        Senator Sullivan. That is all right, I want to get to a
    couple--I just want to get your commitment on that.
        Mr. Fisher. OK.
        Senator Sullivan. General, I want to turn now to the Arctic
    Port. As you know, and Secretary Fisher, this has been a huge
    frustration of mine, my constituents, whether Nome or other
    parts of western Alaska. I put a hold on Assistant Secretary
    James's confirmation because of this issue, because, look, I
    love the Corps of Engineers. You guys like to build stuff, but
    you can be way too bureaucratic.
        And I am concerned that once again, once again--it is
    unbelievable, to be honest--we are experiencing bureaucratic
    delays at the headquarters over this Port of Nome study. It is
    outrageous.
        And General, you and I have had numerous discussions about
    this. This is economics, this is national security for the
    United States of America. If you haven't noticed, the Russians
    and Chinese are all over the Arctic, and we don't have one
    damned port where a Navy ship, an icebreaker, can pull up,
    anywhere near our strategic interests. Every time we try to get
    it moving, delay, delay, delay.
        So my understanding is now another 8 month delay, which I
    just find remarkable. This is the issue that I talked to the
    Assistant Secretary about and put a hold on his confirmation
    on.
        So I need to get a commitment from all of you that you are
    going to work as diligently as possible to meet the deadline of
    no later than the spring of 2020, so we can have this in the
    WRDA bill that we are already working on. Can I get this
    commitment?
        And General, no offense, but I have tried to get this
    commitment from you and many others, including the Assistant
    Secretary. Secretary Fisher, I would like your commitment.
        It is a huge source of frustration. It is not just Alaska.
    The fact that we don't have a deepwater port that can even
    handle an icebreaker or a destroyer in this part of America is
    really detrimental to our national security.
        Can I get another commitment, another commitment from all
    of you? I am kind of tired of getting commitments, because it
    is not really working.
        General.
        General Semonite. Sir, I don't know exactly the reason for
    this. So I commit to you to find out. I don't know what the
    reasons are. And I will come over and personally see you and
    tell you what the timelines are.
        Senator Sullivan. I want you to personally see me, and
    commit to going out to Nome and that region of America to see
    how important this is.
        General Semonite. Sir, you and I have met two or three
    times. I am very aware of the urgency of this as well as the
    criticality of this. I am not tracking the particular
    objections.
        Senator Sullivan. Another 8 month delay is what my team has
    told me.
        General Semonite. I will find out and come see you, sir.
        Senator Sullivan. Look, the Secretary of the Navy, all the
    leadership in the military are starting to recognize how
    important this is to our country.
        Let me just make one other comment on this. I want to
    submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Alaska
    Marine Pilots, who have looked at some of the different
    alternatives that are being looked at by the Corps. They
    mention that one of the alternatives is too small for what we
    have all agreed to needs to be a large, deep draft port for
    deep draft vessels to safely navigate.
        So again, we are going through all this, I want to make
    sure that once we do get it designed that it achieves the goal
    that everybody agrees upon.
        So again, if you can take a look at this, General. And then
    finally, can I get your commitment to take a look at this?
        General Semonite. Sir, we may have a disconnect. My guys
    said original completion was February 2021, and now we are
    going to October 2020. So I see this going to the left by 4
    months. So I need to come over, and either come over, exactly
    right.
        Senator Sullivan. Look, with all due respect, the track
    record of the Corps on this has been abysmal. That is a fact.
    We are like 4 years delaying right now.
        Administrator Bertrand, just very quickly, clean water,
    clean sewers; as Senator Markey mentioned his aging
    infrastructure. You know my State has communities with no
    infrastructure. Thirty communities who don't have any water or
    sewer at all. American citizens, some of the most patriotic
    Americans in the country. Because they all serve in the U.S.
    military.
        So I just want to get your commitment to continue working
    with this Committee, my office, on trying to address what is a
    national shame, I think, that we have American citizens that
    live like they do in third world countries with no flush
    toilets and water and sewer.
        The Administrator is very aware of this, he has been great
    on it. But if I can get your commitment to work with me on
    that.
        Ms. Bertrand. You have my commitment to continue to work
    with you.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you all very much.
        Mr. Fisher, I want to start by thanking the Corps for its
    prompt response and very open communication regarding the
    recent shutdown of the navigation locks on Bonneville Dam.
        The Columbia River system is the largest system for
    exporting barley and for wheat, second largest outlet for corn.
    And when we heard the lock had this major problem, we were
    terrified that it would be a long shutdown.
        I must say, often projects go awry and take much longer
    than expected. But in this case, everything went incredibly
    smoothly. It wasn't like this was something that had been done
    time and time again. So congratulations on both the public
    engagement on it and the actual engineering and repair that
    happened with light speed. So well done.
        In fact, you all did such a good job, I thought I would
    invite you to come and exercise, put your expertise to work on
    the Willamette Falls Locks, which have been in disrepair
    forever and ever and ever. The community would love to have
    them fixed.
        I don't think they are in your responsibility. But I am
    just saying, maybe some additional practice, because you know
    how to do it so well.
        Lieutenant General Semonite, thank you for being with us.
    In Oregon, we have a lot of small harbors. Through the
    appropriations process each year, we lobby intensely to the
    Office of Management and Budget to get the funds for dredging
    those harbors.
        In general, we have been getting them dredged every other
    year. When they are not dredged, it is a calamity to commerce.
    The wave swells get higher, much more dangerous. We have lost
    people through dangerous passage.
        I think it would be very helpful to have a specific set-
    aside for the small ports in WRDA, so we are not just lobbying
    from the outside every year. Is that something that you could
    conceive of supporting?
        General Semonite. Sir, I will defer to Mr. Fisher. But I
    believe we have that right now. We normally exceed the goals of
    that particular set-aside. You and I talked, I think last year.
        We normally, I think, are doing 13 or 14 small harbors
    because of that. And they don't have to compete. But I would
    defer to Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, actually, I don't know if I could add
    anything on top of that. We look at the small harbors around
    the country and the funding allocated to them. I think those
    compete well in Oregon. We will look forward to working with
    you.
        Senator Merkley. I pushed for a set-aside within the
    funding process. But I don't think we have it in the
    authorization process. This is where I think it might be useful
    to have that back.
        Mr. Fisher. OK, yes, we certainly are willing to work with
    you on that.
        General Semonite. I think you are probably right, sir, it
    is the authorization side you are looking for. Yes, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        And Ms. Bertrand, I go to every county every year and hold
    an open town hall. We have 36 of them in Oregon. Beforehand, I
    meet with our county commissioner, city council, so on and so
    forth, all the local officials. The issue they raise more than
    any other is water infrastructure. Clean water supply and
    wastewater treatment.
        This is the reason that I wrote the bill to create the
    WIFIA program, Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act.
    Eventually, we got it funded, started funding to it. That seems
    to be up and rolling pretty well. I think it will expand as
    more communities become familiar with it. It saves a whole lot
    on the interest for big projects.
        But I think we need to have a lot more help for the small
    communities. WIFIA hasn't worked well, it has a high
    application fee, $50,000; it has a low minimum, or a high
    minimum of $5 million project. We have lots of small towns in
    Oregon that are striving to meet the EPA's standards for clean
    water supply and wastewater treatment.
        Let me ask you this. Do you have any suggestions for how we
    can do a better job at meeting the infrastructure challenges
    for small towns and cities in clean water supply and wastewater
    treatment?
        Ms. Bertrand. Thank you for bringing up WIFIA. We agree
    with you that it has been a very successful program.
        Yesterday, we announced that we invited 38 more projects to
    apply. Once those loans are closed, it will be $6 billion in
    new infrastructure. So we are very happy with the progress that
    we have made in three rounds.
        There are some innovative ways that we are seeing that we
    can get to smaller communities through the loan that we did in
    Indiana, where we have small projects that can work together.
    We do offer that assistance to applicants to help them with
    their letters of intent and through their application process,
    to help them get through.
        We would be happy to work with this Committee on any other
    new and innovative ways that we can assist small communities in
    utilizing this important tool.
        Senator Merkley. I do understand the strategy of having
    small communities partner together. In reality, on the ground,
    it is extremely difficult, because projects are in different
    phases.
        Some have done the preliminary work necessary to have an
    engineering concept, some haven't, et cetera. So I just want to
    keep working with you all to see how we can make these projects
    more affordable to small communities.
        We still have wooden pipes supplying water in Oregon. Many
    people didn't even know wooden pipes ever existed. I didn't
    know until I first had folks tell me about digging them up.
        On the wastewater side, the infrastructure is very
    expensive per person for a small town. So it is a real
    challenge. I will just look forward to continuing to brainstorm
    about how we can provide more Federal help on that.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks.
        Senator Merkley and I found ourselves at the same airport a
    week ago. He was going one way; I was going the other way. He
    mentioned to me that he goes to every county of his State every
    year, at least once every year. I told him there are some days
    I go to every county in Delaware, we only have three of them.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. It is a unanimous opinion, General
    Semonite, that the Army Corps, the work you do from one end of
    our State to the other, is much needed and deeply appreciated.
    I just want to make that clear.
        Senator Merkley. Senator, I just might interrupt for a
    second if I could, and say that I was so impressed that you
    were able to visit all three of your counties in a single day.
    I am going to invite you to come to Oregon and have you show me
    how to visit all 36 of mine in a single day.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I could probably learn from you.
        Senator Barrasso. People in Iowa are visiting close to 99
    counties in Iowa, and they are trying to do it between now and
    the upcoming election.
        Senator Carper. Yes, that is true. My wife was out
    visiting, I just told you the other day.
        Senator Barrasso. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, all 99
    counties apparently every year. It is astonishing.
        Senator Carper. Yes, it is, especially for Chuck. He is 86
    years old, he just celebrated his 86th birthday, if you can
    believe that, Senator. Senator Grassley, what a guy.
        I want to follow up on some things, some concerns that
    Senator Cramer was raising just a few minutes ago when he spoke
    and asked some questions.
        I just want to follow up if I could with you, Ms. Bertrand,
    with respect to Waters of the U.S.
        When it comes to the role for States and cooperative
    federalism in the recently proposed WOTUS and 401 certification
    regulations, it really seems to me that EPA is talking out of
    both sides of its mouth.
        In the WOTUS definition, the EPA argues that States should
    have the power to protect waters that no longer fall under the
    Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
        Conversely, EPA's proposed 401 regulations argue that
    States should not have the power to protect their waters from
    federally permitted projects that would harm their water
    quality.
        I asked earlier for a yes or no, and now I am going to ask
    for a yes or no as well. Yes or no, does EPA's proposed WOTUS
    rule rely on State authorities to ensure water quality
    standards are met?
        Ms. Bertrand. So we are in the middle of a regulatory
    process right now where we do believe that we are following the
    appropriate process and interpreting the Clean Water Act in the
    correct way.
        Senator Carper. Would that be a yes or a no?
        Ms. Bertrand. I think it is a--we believe that we have
    moved forward in the appropriate way for both of these
    regulations that you have referred to.
        Senator Carper. Let me try another approach. Yes or no,
    does EPA's proposed 401 rule give Federal permitting agencies
    the ability to effectively veto State water quality decisions?
    Just yes or no, please.
        Ms. Bertrand. Thank you, Senator. I would like to ask if
    you could direct the question to the record and ask me to
    provide you a question for the record.
        Senator Carper. Yes, we will.
        Ms. Bertrand. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. And we will look forward to a prompt and
    timely response.
        Ms. Bertrand. I understand.
        Senator Carper. Another question, if I could, Ms. Bertrand,
    for you. You testified earlier this morning that--this is I
    think a quote--due to a lack of appropriations, EPA has not
    implemented AWIA provisions.
        And isn't it the EPA's responsibility to at least request
    funding for those provisions consistently? I think, if I am not
    mistaken, this Administration proposes cuts to the EPA budget,
    not by a little bit, but by a whole lot. That appears to me
    that this EPA, at least maybe this Administration, really
    doesn't have an intention of fully implementing AWIA as
    Congress intended.
        Your thoughts.
        Ms. Bertrand. So if I may, I do want to clarify that there
    were 30 different provisions in AWIA, many of them were the
    most--it is the most far reaching modifications to the Safe
    Drinking Water Act since 1996.
        There are many that we have been able to move forward on
    where we do have appropriations, and the nexus between the
    appropriations that were already existing and the programs were
    appropriate for us to start to work on. So for example, we have
    a stormwater infrastructure funding task force that was part of
    AWIA. We already had an Environmental Finance Advisory Board,
    and we were able to use part of what already existed to start
    that important work.
        Senator Carper. I don't mean to be rude, but I am going to
    have to ask you to hold that and to respond more fully for the
    record, please.
        Ms. Bertrand. Certainly.
        Senator Carper. On the one hand, for you to say that due to
    lack of appropriations, EPA has not implemented AWIA's
    provisions when EPA doesn't ask for money and the
    Administration, if you do internally, the Administration always
    kicks it back or kicks it down, that is just not----
        Ms. Bertrand. There are many that are in our 2020 budget,
    and we would be happy to provide you with more detail.
        Senator Carper. Great. I look forward to it.
        One last question, if I could, for Mr. Fisher. This is
    regarding budgeting for WRDA requirements.
        During our May 2019 hearing on oversight of the Corps Civil
    Works program, Major General Spellman testified that the Corps
    was able to use funding received under its expenses account to
    complete most reports and activities required by the 2018 and
    prior WRDA bills. This came up, I think, due to concerns raised
    by a number of Senators over the Corps' delays in implementing
    AWIA provisions.
        Mr. Fisher, let me just ask, the Corps consistently
    responds to these concerns by saying that there are, again, a
    lack of appropriations to implement various WRDA provisions. In
    many cases, however, this justification for failure to act
    seems an excuse for not addressing a specific congressional
    mandate as it seems the Corps' budget remains at least static
    in each Administration budget cycle.
        Do you anticipate the Administration will increase the
    Corps' budget request this year, and in future years, to
    account for the shortfall between existing funding levels and
    the legal requirements placed on you by Congress?
        Mr. Fisher. We are certainly working with the
    Administration and Office of Management Budget, as well as
    Corps headquarters, to make sure we are using the resources we
    have wisely to finish reports and do everything we have. I
    think General Semonite, I might kick it to you for a status
    update on some of those.
        General Semonite. Sir, I think that in the past, we were
    probably too quick to say we didn't have all the right funding.
    You asked us to provide 37 reports. So General Spellman and I
    have been relatively ruthless this year, going back and saying,
    where do we get funding, where is there an expectation that
    that should be able to pay for a report.
        Of those 37 reports, three are done, nine are with Mr.
    James right now, all done, ready to be approved and come over.
    Fifteen we are still working on; we will get them done in the
    next couple of months. But they are all funded.
        That only leaves 10 that are pretty substantial and we
    don't have money for those. So we will continue to put them in
    our budget.
        What we are going to try to do, though, is give you an
    interim report, maybe something just 3 or 4 pages long, that
    says, here is at least, to be able to meet your intent. And if
    you want the 100 page version, then we have to find those
    funds.
        But we are committed--when Congress asks us for a report,
    we are committed to try to give you that answer in a timely
    manner, and if not, make sure that we identify the funds, like
    you said earlier, so that you can help us get those moneys.
        Senator Carper. Fair enough. Thank you very much.
        Thank you for coming today, and thank you for filling in
    for Secretary James.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Mr. Fisher, one of the purposes of water resource
    legislation is to authorize water infrastructure projects to
    ensure America's locks, dams, levees, other related flood
    prevention infrastructure remains reliable and in good working
    order.
        Recently, we had the sudden collapse in Wyoming of an old
    Federal irrigation tunnel. I say old; it was built in 1917. I
    was there, and you can see on the cement, 1917 written, and it
    was the Bureau of Reclamation, but it didn't say Bureau of
    Reclamation, because this was even before the Bureau of
    Reclamation existed, 1917.
        So it has created significant economic losses for farmers
    and ranchers in Wyoming and Nebraska, all the areas, about
    100,000 acres that were covered in this irrigation area.
        I think it was just a reminder of the threats posed by
    aging infrastructure. So are there new and innovative tools
    that you have to better detect vulnerabilities in
    infrastructure, and specifically water infrastructure, and then
    go and try to fix them prior to the failures that can occur?
        Mr. Fisher. I will probably let General Semonite address
    some of the technologies and innovations that our Engineering,
    Research and Development Center are coming up with at Erdrick
    Dunn and Vicksburg.
        On the policy side of things, General Semonite mentioned
    some of the authorities we are looking to utilize, the public-
    private partnerships, the WIFIA program that Congress has
    authorized for the Corps. We will, on a policy side, tackle
    some of these problems that we are detecting. We want to use as
    many tools as we have, such as those authorities, to get at
    them, as well as traditional funding mechanisms, as well.
        Senator Barrasso. General Semonite, anything on the new
    technology?
        General Semonite. Mr. Chairman, we are working this in two
    ways. A lot of this goes back to data. And we are looking at
    our data very, very closely. We have a bunch of reliability
    data now, and predictive analysis. We have 715 locks and dams.
    So we know pretty much how many times can that gate open before
    we begin to have some problems.
        So even to the point where we are standardizing a lot of
    our locks and dams, we are able to figure out, when do we need
    a standby one. Instead of buying a standby gate for every
    single lock, how do we have one that might fit 10.
        The other thing we are doing, though, when it comes to the
    technology side of stuff, remember the Orville Dam in
    California; it wasn't a Corps dam, but the spillway there
    failed. So now we are doing things like ground penetrating
    radar, how can we go back in and look through the integrity of
    the dam to try to figure out, are there gaps. Our labs are
    doing an awful lot of great work here.
        I don't think we are where we need to be, but it is not
    because we don't necessarily understand the requirement. It is
    just being able to make sure we are leaning on the best and the
    brightest technologies, really worldwide. We do a lot with
    Holland on this, the Netherlands. We are trying to figure out
    what are the best tools out there.
        Senator Barrasso. One last question for you. The Corps has
    management responsibility for about 34 miles of levees outside
    of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in the area that you are very
    familiar with. These levees are currently being repaired. They
    are critical to the protection of the community. Will you
    commit to working with this Committee to ensure these repairs
    are completed in a timely manner to provide protection to this
    community?
        General Semonite. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Well, if there are no other questions, and we have had 14
    members of the Committee show up here today to ask questions,
    which shows the great interest and the importance of the work
    all of you are doing, so we appreciate all of you being here.
        Members may submit questions for the record.
        The hearing record will stay open for 2 weeks. I ask you to
    get back and answer all the questions within that 2 week period
    of time.
        I want to thank all of you for your time and testimony
    today.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                                     [all]