[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]